Message 188998 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	ncoghlan
Recipients	ethan.furman, ncoghlan
Date	2013-05-12.10:31:23
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1368354683.69.0.863278067388.issue17954@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
I elaborated on this point in http://python-notes.boredomandlaziness.org/en/latest/python3/enum_creation.html#support-for-alternate-declaration-syntaxes However, I'm now wondering if the problem is simply that the "no extension of enums" rule is more restrictive than it needs to be. If you don't define any new methods, then there's no problem with extending an enumeration - it's only the combination of extension and adding extra behaviour which is incoherent.

I elaborated on this point in http://python-notes.boredomandlaziness.org/en/latest/python3/enum_creation.html#support-for-alternate-declaration-syntaxes

However, I'm now wondering if the problem is simply that the "no extension of enums" rule is more restrictive than it needs to be. If you *don't define any new methods*, then there's no problem with extending an enumeration - it's only the combination of extension and adding extra behaviour which is incoherent.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-05-12 10:31:23	ncoghlan	set	recipients: + ncoghlan, ethan.furman
2013-05-12 10:31:23	ncoghlan	set	messageid: <1368354683.69.0.863278067388.issue17954@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-05-12 10:31:23	ncoghlan	link	issue17954 messages
2013-05-12 10:31:23	ncoghlan	create