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 glchapman
Date 2005-03-28.22:54:45
SpamBayes Score
Marked as misclassified
Logged In: YES 

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
Date User Action Args
2007-08-23 14:10:17adminlinkissue672115 messages
2007-08-23 14:10:17admincreate