Message392325
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) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2021-04-29 16:12:40 | gvanrossum | set | recipients:
+ gvanrossum, vstinner, christian.heimes, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Guido.van.Rossum, corona10, pablogsal, shihai1991, erlendaasland, shreyanavigyan |
2021-04-29 16:12:40 | gvanrossum | link | issue43908 messages |
2021-04-29 16:12:40 | gvanrossum | create | |
|