On 11/16/2017 04:22 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote: > On 16 November 2017 at 07:56, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Jim also raised an important point that needs clarification at the spec >> level: given multiple entries in "orig_bases" with __mro_entries__ methods, >> do all such methods get passed the *same* orig_bases tuple? Or do they >> receive partially resolved ones, such that bases listed before them have >> already been resolved to their MRO entries by the time they run. > > Yes, they all get the same initial bases tuple as an argument. Passing > updated ones will cost a bit more and I don't think it will be needed > (in the worst case a base can resolve another base by calling its > __mro_entries__ manually). I will clarify this in the PEP. If the extra complexity is to: > - given orig_bases, a method could avoid injecting bases already listed > if it wanted to > - allowing multiple items to be returned provides a way to programmatically > combine mixins without having to define a new subclass for each combination And each method is passed the same original tuple (without other methods' updates) then don't we end up in a situation where we can have duplicates base classes? -- ~Ethan~
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