Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Roeland Rengelink <rengelin@strw.leidenuniv.nl> writes: > > > > > 5. This is clearly a profound and interesting bug, but solving this > > > seems to involve cans of worms, ten-foot poles, and a re-write of the > > > core. > > [Martin] > > To me, it sounds like this. This has been changed forth and back, and > > in every state, somebody is unhappy. > > Yes, it's very messy, see my comments to the SF bug entry. I see no > fix that doesn't break something else. > > Note that this "worked" in the initial 2.2 release only when the > subclass didn't have a docstring of its own: > > >>> class P(property): > ... "This is class P" > ... > >>> p = P(None, None, None, "this is property p") > >>> p.__doc__ > 'This is class P' > >>> > > The best workaround is I can see that works everywhere is: > > class P(property): > "class P's docstring" > __doc__ = property.__dict__['__doc__'] > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) Thanks for the response and thanks for the workaround. It does solve my immediate problem, and I can live with losing "class P's docstring" in pydoc. I wish I could do more to help though, Roeland
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