On 13.05.2016 11:48, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
This issue is coupled with the future optimization questions.
AFAIC coupling API design to optimization is called premature optimization.
However, the proposed semantics will change if the checks are swapped. So,
my actual question is:
Is that an intended API inconsistency or a known bug supposed to be resolved
later?
Taking into account the description (and the drafted type hint), which
the documentation will probably reflect, the semantic effects of that
are very minor or nonexistent.
From your perspective. As far as I remember, one goal of this proposal
was to avoid wallet gardens. During the lengthy discussion on
python-ideas people brought up that some third-party libs indeed
subclass from str. They are currently locked out.
I do think the documentation of the protocol should say that str or
bytes subclasses should not implement __fspath__.
Indeed. Just one minor note here: str or bytes subclasses *can*
implement __fspath__ and currently it will be *ignored*. Maybe that
changes in the future. So, that's the reason it should not be implemented.
So no API inconsistency there.
API consistency is not defined by docs-matching-implementation but by
implementation-matching-expectations.
Best,
Sven
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
