[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-09-10 Thread Benjamin Peterson

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

I agree with Antoine, so I'm just going to close this as rejected.
There's little benefit in it, but there is potential harm.

--
resolution:  - rejected
status: open - closed

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-09-03 Thread Antoine Pitrou

Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

If it's only to please pychecker, then I don't think we should make this
change. It's potential gratuitous breakage, especially if people
subclass those classes.

--
nosy: +pitrou

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Skip Montanaro

New submission from Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Attached is a patch to fix some pychecker complaints Neal Norwitz
uncovered.  All involved tests pass.  Submitting patch simply because
we're past beta3.

--
assignee: nnorwitz
components: Library (Lib)
files: pychecker.diff
keywords: easy, needs review, patch
messages: 71836
nosy: nnorwitz, skip.montanaro
severity: normal
status: open
title: fix for pychecker property complaints
versions: Python 2.6
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file11233/pychecker.diff

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Benjamin Peterson

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

It doubt many people are inheriting from the classes that are changed to
new-style in the patch, but I thought it was policy that we didn't
change that until 3.0 just in case.

--
nosy: +benjamin.peterson

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Skip Montanaro

Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

I can see where that might be a problem.  If that's the case I suspect 
those property attributes should be changed.  OTOH, do properties work on 
classic classes?

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Georg Brandl

Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

Read-only properties on old-style classes seem to work (though I don't
know if that is an implementation accident), insofar it seems harmless
not to apply this patch.

--
nosy: +georg.brandl

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Christian Heimes

Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

No, they don't work correctly. Readonly properties in old style classes
aren't readonly:

 class Example:
... @property
... def spam(self):
... return spam
...
 example = Example()
 example.spam
'spam'
 example.spam = egg
 example.spam
'egg'

--
nosy: +christian.heimes

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue3658] fix for pychecker property complaints

2008-08-24 Thread Georg Brandl

Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:

Ah yes. But still, I'd call that harmless. Assigning to attributes
you're not supposed to assign to is detrimental in many cases.

___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3658
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com