Re: [Python-Dev] __dir__, part 2

2006-11-10 Thread Fredrik Lundh
Guido van Rossum wrote: No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this is well under way. good work! given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that *overrides* the standard dir() behaviour. *adding* to the default

Re: [Python-Dev] __dir__, part 2

2006-11-10 Thread Guido van Rossum
On 11/10/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guido van Rossum wrote: No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this is well under way. good work! given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that

Re: [Python-Dev] __dir__, part 2

2006-11-10 Thread Thomas Heller
Fredrik Lundh schrieb: Guido van Rossum wrote: No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this is well under way. good work! given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that *overrides* the standard dir()

Re: [Python-Dev] __dir__, part 2

2006-11-10 Thread Fredrik Lundh
Guido van Rossum wrote: I think that ought to go into the guidlines for what's an acceptable __dir__ implementation. We don't try to stop people from overriding __add__ as subtraction either. to me, overriding dir() is a lot more like overriding id() than over- riding +. I don't think an

Re: [Python-Dev] __dir__, part 2

2006-11-10 Thread Guido van Rossum
On 11/10/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guido van Rossum wrote: I think that ought to go into the guidlines for what's an acceptable __dir__ implementation. We don't try to stop people from overriding __add__ as subtraction either. to me, overriding dir() is a lot more like