Hi Nathaniel,
their fault for not having a sense of humor. Trying to further defend this
position is just going to dig you in deeper, so let's drop the discussion
here.
You're right, the formulation wasn't correct. My excuses. I just better
do the review. Thanks.
Regards,
francis
_
On 30 Apr 2014 19:17, "francis" wrote:
>
> On 04/30/2014 04:45 AM, Adam Polkosnik wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
>
> >
>
> On 04/30/2014 04:48 AM, Jessica McKellar wrote:
>>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for contributing to Python! But not everyone on this list is a
guy.
>>
>
> That was
On 04/30/2014 04:45 AM, Adam Polkosnik wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
On 04/30/2014 04:48 AM, Jessica McKellar wrote:
Hi Adam,
Gentlemen,
Thanks for contributing to Python! But not everyone on this list is a guy.
That was a fast reply (< 2min -> Ain't you playing with bots
searching for the "Gent
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Charles-François Natali
wrote:
> 2014-04-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Claudiu Popa :
>> [...]
>>
>> If anyone agrees with the above, then I'll modify the patch. This will
>> be its last iteration, any other bikeshedding
>> should be addressed by the core dev who'll apply it
It would be a disaster if the base class's slot descriptors would be broken
by that though, so the implementation of slot descriptors would have to
become more complicated. (It's worth understanding how __slots__ works. the
interpreter first finds the slot on the class and then calls its __get__
me
