Greg Ewing <greg.ewing <at> canterbury.ac.nz> writes: > Joshua Haberman wrote: > > This is not as bad as having someone > > set __class__ on one of my instances, or set attributes on my type, etc. > > Is there any real need to prevent someone from doing > those things?
My ultimate goal is to make my types as much like regular built-in types as possible. Python as a language has chosen to "lock down" built-in objects, even going so far as to specifically check for the "Carlo Verre hack." I defer to those decisions to answer the question "is there any real need to prevent someone from doing these things?" If it's important for the built-in types, why should it be less important for mine? I don't want my type to be a second-class citizen just because I happen to be dynamically allocating it. If I were writing this extension for a language like Ruby, for which it is convention that built-in classes are "open," then I wouldn't mind allowing these things. I'm just trying to make my extension as idiomatic and "native" as possible. Josh _______________________________________________ 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
