A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-May/014695.html below:

[Python-Dev] Type/class

[Python-Dev] Type/class [Python-Dev] Type/classJeremy Hylton jeremy@digicool.com
Thu, 10 May 2001 17:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>> "PP" == Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com> writes:

  PP> I would like to argue that "plain old C types" should act as if
  PP> they have __dict__s for consistency with other types. It is
  PP> sometimes useful to be able to annotate objects by adding
  PP> attributes to them. But this only works with class instance
  PP> objects, not instances of types.

Every type should have an __dict__ of type dict?  Then every dict
must have an __dict__, including the __dict__ of __dict__?

Once every object has an __dict__, every object will be mutable.  Then
no object will be usable as a dict key and we can get rid of dict's
entirely.

Jeremy




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