On 8/6/2011 8:29 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Do you realize that __xxx__ names can have any semantics they darn
well please?
That does not seem to be to be the issue Cristoff raised.
If a particular __xxx__ name (or some aspect of it) is
undocumented that's not a bug (not even a doc bug), it
Guido,
thanks for the quick reply! Of course I am aware that __xxx__ names are
special. But I was assuming that the features of a python interpreter
which are necessary to execute the pure python modules of the standard
library are supposed to be documented.
Christoph
_
Christoph,
Do you realize that __xxx__ names can have any semantics they darn
well please? If a particular __xxx__ name (or some aspect of it) is
undocumented that's not a bug (not even a doc bug), it just means
"hands off".
That said, there may well be a bug, but it would be in the behavior of
t
Hi,
while playing with abstract base classes and looking at their
implementation, I've stumbled across the following issue. With Python
3.2, the script
class Foo(object):
__abstractmethods__ = ['boo']
class Bar(object):
pass
Bar.__abstractmethods__ = ['boo']
f = Foo()
b = Bar()
produces
