On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14 November 2017 at 09:41, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I am happy now with the PEP, except for one detail: maybe
> `__mro_entry__` should always return a tuple and then maybe renamed to
> `__mro_entries__`. (See debate at
> https://github.com/python/peps/pull/460#issuecomment-343969528 .)

I like that - very nice refinement.

​I hope the order in which multiple __mro_entries__ will appear in the mro will be documented clearly, regardless of how obvious it might feel.​ It might take a while, before anyone notices that something weird happens because they did it the wrong way around.

Out of curiosity, what kind of cases would benefit from __mro__entries__ being able to return two

​or more ​

entries?

Also, I'm still wondering about __bases__ and __orig_bases__. Could we call these __concrete_bases__ and __bases__ instead (respectively)?

For an explanation of why I think this might be a good idea, see this new thread:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-November/047896.html

​––Koos

​

+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +