Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'd be happy to extend the convention to all such attributes -- > setting it to None to mean that the subclass doesn't want to provide > it. That's clean, can't possibly be interpreted to mean anything else, > and doesn't require you to actually call the attribute.
Although unless there's some special casing for it in the interpreter, attempting to use such an attribute will give a somewhat confusing error message -- something like "Object of type NoneType is not callable" instead of "Object of type <YourClass> has no __xxx__ attribute". _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
