Author gvanrossum
Recipients Guido.van.Rossum, Mark.Shannon, christian.heimes, corona10, erlendaasland, gvanrossum, pablogsal, serhiy.storchaka, shihai1991, shreyanavigyan, vstinner
Date 2021-04-29.16:12:40
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAP7+vJLuyFECTXpyBCoT08SvGjrigH43ycHW-t0FsfbnYiNkdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1619706459.75.0.498618370957.issue43908@roundup.psfhosted.org>
Content
I don’t think we’re waiting for more crazy hacks.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 07:27 STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> STINNER Victor <vstinner@python.org> added the comment:
>
> >
> https://discuss.python.org/t/list-of-built-in-types-converted-to-heap-types/8403
>
> In the past, I used _random.Random for manual tests to compare static type
> and heap types, check which one is mutable.
>
> C type _random.Random is inherited by Python type random.Random which is
> mutable. Since _random.Random is not directly seen by developers, I don't
> think that it's worth it to make it immutable.
>
> For the other types, I would not say that they are "built-in types" or
> that it would be really bad to modify them. I would say that for the other
> types, the "We are consenting adults" rule stands. You can hack a type for
> a very specific need, but in this case you are on your own.
>
> For example, people love to hack AST. Maybe the fact that ast.AST became
> mutable in Python 3.9 will unlock some crazy hack?
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43908>
> _______________________________________
>
-- 
--Guido (mobile)
History
Date User Action Args
2021-04-29 16:12:40gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, vstinner, christian.heimes, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Guido.van.Rossum, corona10, pablogsal, shihai1991, erlendaasland, shreyanavigyan
2021-04-29 16:12:40gvanrossumlinkissue43908 messages
2021-04-29 16:12:40gvanrossumcreate