Walter Dörwald wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> [...]
__str__ and __unicode__ as well as the other hooks were
specifically added for the type constructors to use.
However, these were added at a time where sub-classing
of types was not possible, so it's time now to reconsider
whether this functionality should be extended to sub-classes
as well.
So can we reach consensus on this, or do we need a
BDFL pronouncement?
I don't have a clear picture of what the consensus currently
looks like :-)
If we're going for for a solution that implements the hook
awareness for all __<typename>__ hooks, I'd be +1 on that.
If we only touch the __unicode__ case, we'd only be created
yet another special case. I'd vote -0 on that.
Another solution would be to have all type constructors
ignore the __<typename>__ hooks (which were originally
added to provide classes with a way to mimic type behavior).
In general, I think we should try to get rid off special
cases and go for a clean solution (either way).
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 23 2005)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
