Vladimir Marangozov wrote: > Amazed or not, it is contentious. I have the responsability to > remove my veto once my concerns are adressed. So far, I have the > impression that all I get (if I get anything at all -- see above) > is "conveniency" from Gordon, which is nothing else but laziness > about creating instances. I have the impression that majority of changes to Python are conveniences. > As long as we discuss customization of objects with builtin types, > the "inconsistency" stays bound to classes and instances. Add modules > if you wish, but they are just namespaces. This proposal expands > the customization inconsistency to functions and methods. And I am > reluctant to see this happening "under the hood", without a global > vision of the problem, just because a couple of people have abused > unprotected attributes and claim that they can't do what they want > because Python doesn't let them to. Can you please explain how "consistency" is violated? - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4