pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 21:24:49 CET 2009
On Jan 24, 12:33 am, Hrvoje Niksic <hnik... at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> writes:
> > Anyway, all you're doing is distracting attention from my claim that
> > instance objects wouldn't need to be locked. They wouldn't, no
> > matter how mutable you insist these objects whose bits would never
> > change are.
> Only if you're not implementing Python, but another language that
> doesn't support __slots__ and assignment to instance.__dict__.
I am only going to say all Python types prior to 3.0 support classes
without __slots__, so while I agree that this would be a different
language, it wouldn't necessarily be "not Python".
(Python, of course, is what GvR says Python is, and he isn't going to
say that the language I presented is Python. No worries there! :)
I'm only saying that it is conceivably similar enough to be a
different version of Python. It would be a different language in the
same way that Python 2.6 is a different language from Python 3.0.)
Incidentally, the proposal does allow slots to be defined, but only
for actual mutable types, not for ordinary class instances.
More information about the Python-list