On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Also note that Marc-André Lemburg (one of the authors of the unicode >> implementation) is opposed to that change. See the discussion in the bug >> tracker >> issue for the details. > > From a Cython perspective, I find the lack of efficient subclassing after such > a change particularly striking. That seriously bit me in Py2 when I tried > making XML text content a bit more intelligent in lxml (i.e. make it remember > what XML element it originated from). Having the same problem for unicode in > Py3 doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Can you explain this a bit more? I presume you're talking about subclassing in C, which always precarious -- from the Python perspective there's no difference, the objects are opaque. I do note that the mechanisms that exist for supporting adding a __dict__ to a str (in 2.x; or bytes in 3.x) or a tuple could be extended for other purposes. Also, please explain why instead of subclassing you couldn't use a wrapper class? (I.e. use containment instead of inheritance.) All in all, given the advantage (half the number of allocations) of the proposal I think there would have to be *very* good arguments against before we reject this outright. I'd like to understand Marc-Andre's reasons too. -- --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
