[Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__
but aren't
Michael Hudson
mwh at python.net
Tue Aug 10 15:55:19 CEST 2004
James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> writes:
> There's a fair number of classes that claim they are defined in
> __builtin__, but do not actually appear there. For example:
"__builtin__" is the "I don't know" answer in type_module for
non-HEAPTYPEs. I'm certainly not sure that's totally wise...
> IMO classes ought to actually appear in __builtin__ if they claim they
> are defined there. Doing otherwise breaks reflection, as you have to
> add a special case for these class names to use the appropriate object
> from the types module instead. Thoughts? If it isn't desirable to have
> these names appear in __builtin__, perhaps their '__module__' should
> be changed to another module where they are defined?
Such as? There really isn't a module where e.g. GeneratorType is
defined.
Cheers,
mwh
--
3. Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.
-- Alan Perlis, [Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__
but aren't
Next message: [Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__
but aren't
Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list