Sorry, I missed the fact that this was about nested classes.
Still, I don't think it's worth fixing.
--Guido
On 4/6/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think it's fine as it is. I don't think making it walk the
> > inheritance tree is helpful; the output
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think it's fine as it is. I don't think making it walk the
> inheritance tree is helpful; the output would be too large. Also, an
> instance doesn't have any code and that's fine too.
Inheritance has nothing to do with that.
> (Didn't you mean "dis.dis(D) doesn't touch
I think it's fine as it is. I don't think making it walk the
inheritance tree is helpful; the output would be too large. Also, an
instance doesn't have any code and that's fine too.
(Didn't you mean "dis.dis(D) doesn't touch C"?)
--Guido
On 4/6/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
dis.dis currently handles new-style classes stepmotherly: given
class C(object):
def Cm(): pass
class D(object):
def Dm(): pass
dis.dis(C) doesn't touch D, and
dis.dis(C()) doesn't touch anything.
Should it be fixed? It may need some reworking in dis.dis.
Georg
___
