Patches item #1163731, was opened at 2005-03-15 15:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1163731&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Core (C code) Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Michael Hudson (mwh) Assigned to: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter) Summary: small sanity checks for user-defined mros Initial Comment: I the course of looking at bug 1153075 (which is a nastier problem) I found a couple of sillies: no checking was done that a user defined mro() function returns a sequence or that said sequence contains types or classes. This patch fixes this, at least, and I'd like to get it into 2.4.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) Date: 2007-03-06 14:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=21627 Originator: NO This was committed as r41845, as part of #1153075, AFAICT. mwh, if you think there are still changes pending, please resubmit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh) Date: 2005-03-17 10:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=6656 You have appreciated that these are crash bugs? I think it's a little bit more than "useful argument checking". OTOH, essentially noone defines mro() functions so it's not that big a deal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) Date: 2005-03-16 21:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80475 If I read it correctly, you're adding useful argument checking that is helpful when the user does something wrong. However, nothing is currently preventing them from using it correctly. Unless it is a critical fix, it should probably go on the head and ultimately into Py2.4.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh) Date: 2005-03-16 12:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Well, possibly I'm rushing unecessarily. OTOH "arguably not actually broken" is simply not true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) Date: 2005-03-16 12:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80475 Are you sure to want to backport this directly to a release candidate without it having lived on the head for a while? Seems a little dangerous at this stage for something that is arguably not actually broken right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh) Date: 2005-03-15 15:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Argh, this is what I meant to upload. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1163731&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Patches mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/patches
