Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: I agree with Mark. This feature opens up a security hole large enough to drive a train through.
Looking at the python-dev thread, the only motivation appears to be making module look more like classes. I'd suggest to propose a PEP for making changes to module objects rather than creating a backdoor which let's you implement those changes at the expense of putting the whole interpreter at risk. IMO, .__class__ of static types should not be mutable. I can understand why heap types need this feature (to e.g. be able to copy objects without invoking any .__init__() methods of unknown objects as is needed for unpickle style operations), but for static types the set of supported objects is limited and the consequences of calling their constructor is known. ---------- nosy: +lemburg _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24912> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
