On 11/10/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > I think that ought to go into the guidlines for what's an acceptable
> > __dir__ implementation. We don't try to stop people from overriding
> > __add__ as subtraction either.
>
> to me, overriding dir() is a lot
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think that ought to go into the guidlines for what's an acceptable
> __dir__ implementation. We don't try to stop people from overriding
> __add__ as subtraction either.
to me, overriding dir() is a lot more like overriding id() than over-
riding "+". I don't think a
Thomas Heller wrote:
>>> No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this
>>> is well under way. good work!
>>
>> given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm
>> not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that *overrides* the standard
>> dir() behaviour. *adding*
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this
>> is well under way. good work!
>
> given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm
> not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that *overrides* the standard
> dir
On 11/10/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this
> > is well under way. good work!
>
> given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm
> not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> No objection on targetting 2.6 if other developers agree. Seems this
> is well under way. good work!
given that dir() is used extensively by introspection tools, I'm
not sure I'm positive to a __dir__ that *overrides* the standard
dir() behaviour. *adding* to the defaul
