Message233173
Perhaps it is worth addressing, briefly, the following hypothetical question, as a litmus test against the faint dis-encapsulation code-smell some folks might be picking up from this:
In a hypothetcial world without setuptools, would these changes have merit?
I'd say, technically, yes. In the Extension case, we are just really trying to ask, "is it a tuple", and in the Distribution case, "Can we use this thing to finalize/reinitialize Commands?", so, in theory, at least, these isinstance() checks are less pythonic than the hasattr checks in my patches.
That stated, I think isinstance was the sensible way to code this in a vacuum, and obviously, I would never have thought this was a fantastic and self-evident proposal, were it not for these setuptools problems. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-12-29 11:55:03 | gmt | set | recipients:
+ gmt, scoder, cgrohmann, djc, eric.araujo, Arfrever, dstufft |
2014-12-29 11:55:03 | gmt | set | messageid: <1419854103.32.0.914804062743.issue23102@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-12-29 11:55:03 | gmt | link | issue23102 messages |
2014-12-29 11:55:02 | gmt | create | |
|