4 ms·
The first might be "Let's replace all use of tp_* with hash lookups", which I suppose would be closed quickly, amidst a storm of muffled giggles. But at least b
by hosay123 12y ago
The first might be "Let's replace all use of tp_* with hash lookups", which I suppose would be closed quickly, amidst a storm of muffled giggles. But at least by then you'd know why the current implementation works the way it does.
The next might be "__getattribute__ mechanism has surprising behaviour in common use-case" (which itself would imply having a use case where any of this mattered). This one might actually result in some productive discussion regarding a fix.
Your second reply is basically a doc bug, one of "__getattribute__ optimization is not specified in the language reference" or "__getattribute__ optimization causes non-comformance with the language specification", either way, you would get the attention of the few people who can actually help you, rather than attention from the many more who can't
- the_mitsuhiko 12y agoYou're assuming I am not aware why the system works the way it does currently which is incorrect. I outlined what a Python could look like, not what I want the CPython guys to implement. I am perfectly aware that this is not going to happen.
- maxerickson 12y agoI think if you had titled the post differently you would have ended up with a lot less argumentation about how what you propose isn't a good idea for python. As it is, the title at least primes the reader to think you are asking for what you go on to describe.