New submission from shadowadler:
I discovered this while messing about with an unrelated idea, but the issue is
that if you inherit explicitly from object, you get different behaviour than
when you inherit implicitly. This is duplicated from my SO answer here:
https://stackoverflow.com
Changes by shadowadler <shadowad...@gmail.com>:
--
type: -> behavior
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue31283>
___
__
shadowadler added the comment:
I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying- however, the received
wisdom (as per my response to the SO question) is that
class SomeClass(object):
pass
and
class SomeClass:
pass
Should do the same thing. They evidently don't. It might
shadowadler added the comment:
I accept what you are saying as consistent. Nevertheless, the documentation
states that the two examples I gave should yield identical results. They do
not, they perform different actions, albeit subtly.
Ergo, this is unexpected behaviour from a documentation
shadowadler added the comment:
Out of curiosity, given that you can change every other point in the hierarchy
by changing the binding of modules, what is your philosophical objection to
being able to change the top of the hierarchy?
--
___
Python
shadowadler added the comment:
Still not disagreeing with you- I just don't think that this is what the
documentation implies.
--
___
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/i
shadowadler added the comment:
Not at all- what you are talking about is obviously absurd. I am merely
asserting that the statement in the docs you point to - that the two statements
are equivalent - is untrue, the two statements are not equivalent in their
behaviour
shadowadler added the comment:
The two phrases you present are significantly different- one draws an
equivalence. The other does not. That in essence is what this is all about.
The difference between an indirect and direct reference in the class
inheritance syntax is neither implied nor
shadowadler added the comment:
I really don't see that as a logical extension of what I am saying at all.
Sure, shadowing builtins changes what they do, but if you're saying the syntax
is equivalent then te effect of the shadowing should be consistent
shadowadler added the comment:
You have put that much more precisely than I could have.
I'm not aware that it is an issie elsewhere, but given that I only ran into
this today I may not the person best qualified to answer that question
10 matches
Mail list logo
