Brian Quinlan <brian@sweetapp.com> writes: > > I also notice that you rely on the fact that Python code has no > > way to find out the underlying object of a weak proxy. I think > > this is a weak assumption - there is no guarantee that this is not > > possible, or might not be possible in the future. > This is a concern. If I am mistaken in my assumption, please let me know > and I will either invent my own proxy type or use the > check-on-every-method-call technique. I'm not exactly sure what your assumption is. If it is "in Python 2.3, there is no way to unwrap a proxy except by writing an extension module", then your assumption is correct. If your assumption is "there is a guarantee that there never will be such mechanism", your assumption is incorrect. Regards, Martin
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