I apologize - I had forgotten what you were telling me by the time I replied. Here's a better answer. > Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> At 03:26 PM 12/3/2007 -0700, Neil Toronto wrote: >> Actually, you're missing the part where such evil code *can't* muck >> things up for class dictionaries. Type dicts aren't reachable via >> ordinary Python code; you *have* to modify them via setattr. (The >> __dict__ of types returns a read-only proxy object, so the most evil >> rich compare you can imagine still can't touch it.) C code can and does alter tp_dict directly already. If caching were implemented within type's setattr, all these places would have to be changed to use setattr only. That doesn't seem so bad at first. It's a change in convention, certainly: a new informal rule that says "no monkeying with a PyTypeObject's tp_dict, period". Lack of observance could be difficult to debug, as a PyDict_SetItem would appear to have worked just fine to C code but not show up to Python code. Neil
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