On 7/26/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
Yes, of course something like that should be done. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
