Author gvanrossum
Recipients ecatmur, gvanrossum, lukasz.langa
Date 2013-06-26.22:43:28
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1372286608.72.0.0116535598461.issue18244@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Wow. This is heady stuff. I can't say I totally get every detail, so I'll just pick on some things you wrote.

In particular, I'm not sure I agree that there should be a conflict when there are two applicable base classes with a different dispatch if one of them is explicit in the MRO and the other isn't.  After all, it both were explicit in the MRO the first one there would be picked, right? And virtual base classes are considered to appear after explicit base classes, right? (Or not?)

I do think the new approach is better (the extra code doesn't bother me), and I may be convinced yet that you made the right choice in the above case.

I have some trivial review comments on your patch to, will send those via Rietveld.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-06-26 22:43:28gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, lukasz.langa, ecatmur
2013-06-26 22:43:28gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1372286608.72.0.0116535598461.issue18244@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-06-26 22:43:28gvanrossumlinkissue18244 messages
2013-06-26 22:43:28gvanrossumcreate