Walter Dörwald wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > > [...] > >> __str__ and __unicode__ as well as the other hooks were >> specifically added for the type constructors to use. >> However, these were added at a time where sub-classing >> of types was not possible, so it's time now to reconsider >> whether this functionality should be extended to sub-classes >> as well. > > > So can we reach consensus on this, or do we need a > BDFL pronouncement? I don't have a clear picture of what the consensus currently looks like :-) If we're going for for a solution that implements the hook awareness for all __<typename>__ hooks, I'd be +1 on that. If we only touch the __unicode__ case, we'd only be created yet another special case. I'd vote -0 on that. Another solution would be to have all type constructors ignore the __<typename>__ hooks (which were originally added to provide classes with a way to mimic type behavior). In general, I think we should try to get rid off special cases and go for a clean solution (either way). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 23 2005) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::
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