Message14170
Logged In: YES
user_id=86307
Still here -- sorry not to reply sooner. I couldn't
actually remember what my patch was supposed to do, or more
specifically I couldn't remember what it did to check that
this sort of change in __bases__ was safe. So, anyway, I
finally got around to looking at the patch again, and at
typeobject.c, and I can say that I'm less sure of the
subtleties involved now than I was then. Anyway, with that
caveat, what you suggest sounds reasonable enough, though I
suppose you'd have to reinsert a dict descriptor if
__bases__ was later changed back to (object,). (It looks
like the patch would have supported changing __bases__ back
to (object,), though perhaps it shouldn't.)
It seems to me nobody is particularly troubled by this
limitation on assignment to __bases__ (perhaps you know
differently?). Maybe it's best just to close this as "not a
bug."
|
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2007-08-23 14:10:17 | admin | link | issue672115 messages |
2007-08-23 14:10:17 | admin | create | |
|