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 ionelmc
Recipients Claudiu.Popa, belopolsky, christian.heimes, eric.snow, ethan.furman, ionelmc, jedwards, llllllllll, r.david.murray, rhettinger, steven.daprano, terry.reedy
Date 2015-04-20.13:36:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
My point was about consistency in descriptor handling, not consistency of
fault (eg: broken everywhere). I don't understand why that's not clear

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 <> 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 < <javascript:;>>
> <>
> _______________________________________


-- Ionel Cristian Mărieș,
Date User Action Args
2015-04-20 13:36:08ionelmcsetrecipients: + ionelmc, rhettinger, terry.reedy, belopolsky, christian.heimes, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, Claudiu.Popa, ethan.furman, eric.snow, llllllllll, jedwards
2015-04-20 13:36:08ionelmclinkissue23990 messages
2015-04-20 13:36:08ionelmccreate