Message 408410 - Python tracker

Message408410

Author	zuo
Recipients	docs@python, martin.panter, rhettinger, zuo
Date	2021-12-12.22:16:59
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1639347419.17.0.880032978879.issue20751@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to

Content
Sure. But don't you think there should be ``.__get__(a, type(a))`` rather than ``.__get__(a, A)``? Then the whole statement would be true regardless of whether A is the actual type of a, or only a superclass of the type of a. That would also be more consistent with the second point of the description, i.e., the one about Instance Binding (where we have ``type(a).__dict__['x'].__get__(a, type(a))``). Also, I believe that ``type(a).__mro__`` would be more consistent (than ``a.__class__.mro``) with that point.

Content

Sure. But don't you think there should be ``.__get__(a, type(a))`` rather than ``.__get__(a, A)``? Then the whole statement would be true regardless of whether A is the actual type of a, or only a superclass of the type of a.

That would also be more consistent with the second point of the description, i.e., the one about *Instance Binding* (where we have ``type(a).__dict__['x'].__get__(a, type(a))``).

Also, I believe that ``type(a).__mro__`` would be more consistent (than ``a.__class__.mro``) with that point.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2021-12-12 22:16:59	zuo	set	recipients: + zuo, rhettinger, docs@python, martin.panter
2021-12-12 22:16:59	zuo	set	messageid: <1639347419.17.0.880032978879.issue20751@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-12-12 22:16:59	zuo	link	issue20751 messages
2021-12-12 22:16:59	zuo	create