Also, descriptors are a core mechanism in new-style classes - you can't
have methods without descriptors. Why would you even consider removing
descriptors from the special method lookup if that's part of the object
model design?

On Monday, April 20, 2015, Ionel Cristian Mărieș <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Ionel Cristian Mărieș added the comment:
>
> My point was about consistency in descriptor handling, not consistency of
> fault (eg: broken everywhere). I don't understand why that's not clear
> here.
>
> The big idea here is to harmonize capability checking with descriptor
> handling. Justifying breakage in callable with breakage in
> collections.Callable serves it no justice.
>
> On Monday, April 20, 2015, R. David Murray <report@bugs.python.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >
> > R. David Murray added the comment:
> >
> > I in case it wasn't clear, I closed this not because of my "case closed"
> > statement, but because as Eric pointed out we *do* have consistency here:
> > things which check *capabilities* (as opposed to actually *using* the
> > special methods), like callable and Iterable, only look for the existence
> > of the method, consistently.  The fact that you can then get an
> > AttributeError later when actually using the method is unfortunate, but
> > there really isn't anything sensible to be done about it, due to backward
> > compatibility concerns.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > _______________________________________
> > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue23990>
> > _______________________________________
> >
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
> -- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org <javascript:;>>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23990>
> _______________________________________
>

-- 

Thanks,
-- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro