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 terry.reedy
Recipients Gerrit.Holl, docs@python, martin.panter, terry.reedy
Date 2015-10-17.03:37:20
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Martin, I agree with changing the doc. Gerrit misunderstood because 'no public constructors' is either meaningless or wrong.  We do not usually talk about public versus private constructors.  This sounds more like C++ than Python.

For Python namespaces, names that start with '_' are private by convention unless documented otherwise.  Special names (__x__) are private in the sense that they are not usually used except by methods of the class; special methods are usually accessed by syntax or public names.  For class C, the default constructor is C.__new__, accessed by calling C.  (Let us not worry about other methods here.)  If C is a public name, with no '_', as is 'IOBase', then to me it has/is a public constructor.  Like other classes, IOBase has .__new__ and calling it produces an instance, as Gerrit discovered.  In that sense, it is not truly abstract.

I believe 'has no public constructor' is intended to mean 'has no documented signature and should not be *directly* called."  (If subclasses do call the base, then the signature should be documented.)
Date User Action Args
2015-10-17 03:37:21terry.reedysetrecipients: + terry.reedy, docs@python, Gerrit.Holl, martin.panter
2015-10-17 03:37:21terry.reedysetmessageid: <>
2015-10-17 03:37:21terry.reedylinkissue25415 messages
2015-10-17 03:37:20terry.reedycreate