Excerpts from Goro Fuji's message of Sun Feb 28 21:09:29 -0500 2010: > Dave said that constructor strictness should not be tied to immutability, but > I don't think so. This is because existing options to make_immutable, namely > constructor_name and inline_construcotr, etc., are irrelevant to > immutability.
You can't inline the constructor (or anything else) before the metaclass is immutable or future changes to the MOP won't be reflected in the inlined stuff. Even if you want to argue that inlining a constructor can/should be separated from make_immutable, there's still a clear dependency between inlining (including the decision whether or not to do it) and immutability. Strict constructors, on the other hand, can work unchanged regardless of the metaclass's mutability or lack thereof. I have to side with Dave on this one. hdp.
