Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arguably, the check for an attribute would be sufficient if it checked > whether an attribute implementation is around -- either by a simple > attribute value or a descriptor providing that.
At this point, I guess the outcome of the discussion depends on whether it is considered legal or abuse to implement a data descriptor in such a way that it hides an attribute defined on a base class by raising an AttributeError. > There's another method: verifyClass. This definitely only checks the > presence of an implementation. To be more precise: the declaration of implementation of an interface as opposed to actual implementation of its attributes. > Thomas: There is an issue that we regularly see with verifyClass that > makes us instanciated the objects and then use verifyObject. I don't > remember what it was right now. Do you? Not really, other than to avoid the case of a happy verifyClass() call with the application dying of a forgotten attribute implementation. Could there be classes we subclass that claim to implement an interface but don't fully do so until after instantiation? Just a guess... Thomas -- Thomas Lotze · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )