James Y Knight wrote: > I'd like to quote some of a thread I started in Aug 2004, subject > "Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__ but aren't". I > haven't rerun the script that generated this list (I have to find it > again, first, or rewrite it...), but assuming these types are still > lying about their location, most seem likely candidates for putting in > a pyvm module.
Thanks for the list! It's going to help me very much. > It might also be a nice idea to require types to have an explicit > module defined (that is: require tp_name to have a '.' in it) so that > types can't accidently claim to be defined in the __builtin__ module. I don't think that it's important. Most of the types can't be instantiated in Python code because they are hard wired to implementation details in C code. A valid dotted name is only required when the types are pickle-able and can be instantiated in Python code. Christian _______________________________________________ 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
