Christian Hudon added the comment: As a newbie to the CPython source code (and as someone who started working on this bug because it was on the lists of easy bugs for PyCon 2014), I don't have a strong attachment either way, as long as some kind of decision is reached, and I can check this off my list.
If forced to take a stance, I would probably agree that this might be reaching into "foolish consistency" territory, as I just don't see myself ever using the new possibilities that this added code would allow. If the decision is made to fix this, I'll improve the tests to actually call these new callables (and check that the result of the call is correct). I'll wait until the "we should fix this" decision is made to work on the patch again, though. But if this is closed as not-a-bug, I'll be a happy camper too (as I've learned some stuff about CPython internals in the process). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20309> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
