Message329438
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | BNMetrics, gvanrossum, josh.r, pablogsal, pekka.klarck, xtreak |
| Date | 2018-11-07.21:25:23 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1541625923.92.0.788709270274.issue34805@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Thanks for the long post! Clearly there is more here than the eye can easily see. Nevertheless, I feel that, *in this case*, it's not likely that such a re-implementation will ever happen, so I think it is okay to constrain the future so we can guarantee (the ordering aspect of) the current behavior. The current behavior also *feels* natural, regardless of the validity of the OP's use case. The edge case of assignment to __bases__ is a good one to call out (in the docs and in the test) but I don't think the current behavior there is sufficiently dicey to change it or to exclude it from the guarantee. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-11-07 21:25:23 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, pekka.klarck, josh.r, pablogsal, xtreak, BNMetrics |
| 2018-11-07 21:25:23 | gvanrossum | set | messageid: <1541625923.92.0.788709270274.issue34805@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-11-07 21:25:23 | gvanrossum | link | issue34805 messages |
| 2018-11-07 21:25:23 | gvanrossum | create | |