[Python-ideas] PEP 560 (second post)

[Koos Zevenhoven]

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

> On 14 November 2017 at 09:41, Guido van Rossum <guido at 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 +
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20171115/bc9efd46/attachment.html>