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 <>
In-reply-to <>
I don’t think we’re waiting for more crazy hacks.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 07:27 STINNER Victor <> wrote:

> STINNER Victor <> added the comment:
> >
> 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 <>
> <>
> _______________________________________
--Guido (mobile)
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