On May 24, 2015 4:52 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2015 07:26, "Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you still think that's not enough justification then we can table __definition_order__ for now. > > > > > > Let's table it. It's hard to compare alternatives on a single dimension of "which is a bigger change". Sounds good. > > Right, it isn't that I think __definition_order__ is necessarily a bad idea, I just suspect it's redundant if we end up going ahead with __init_subclass__ (which would allow a base class to opt in to preserving the definition order, either of all fields or selected ones), > and the latter change is definitely out of scope for 3.5 at this point. > > There are also other open questions, like whether or not dir() should respect the order when reporting attribute names, or if dict_proxy should respect the order when iterating. Yeah, I'll start up a thread on python-ideas once I've gotten the other stuff wrapped up. Thanks for the feedback. -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150524/eec06be0/attachment.html>
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