Author demian.brecht
Recipients demian.brecht, r.david.murray
Date 2013-02-22.17:10:25
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1361553026.42.0.316467508247.issue17272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Yes, I realized that I had forgotten to add the "do nothing" option after posting but figured it was relatively obvious :)

"Python doesn't normally make things read-only just because mutating them does nothing useful.  Sometimes we make things read-only when mutating them does nasty stuff, but even then sometimes we don't."

I realize that this is a higher level question and outside of the scope of this particular issue (and likely belonging more in python-ideas), but doesn't this somewhat contradict "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."? I'd assume that this should not only apply to sandboxed object implementations, but also at a higher level across /all/ objects. From your post, I assume inconsistency between modules, which would imply non-obvious ways to "do something" when moving from one module (or object) implementation to the next.

I'm definitely interested to hear whether or not others would find this change useful as I do. There /should/ be no other changes required for consistency as no other attributes of the Request class that don't already implement assignment methods (i.e. "data") are affected by side effects within __init__ (or anywhere else).
History
Date User Action Args
2013-02-22 17:10:26demian.brechtsetrecipients: + demian.brecht, r.david.murray
2013-02-22 17:10:26demian.brechtsetmessageid: <1361553026.42.0.316467508247.issue17272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-02-22 17:10:26demian.brechtlinkissue17272 messages
2013-02-22 17:10:25demian.brechtcreate