Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> added the comment: I don’t think we’re waiting for more crazy hacks.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 07:27 STINNER Victor <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment: > > > > https://discuss.python.org/t/list-of-built-in-types-converted-to-heap-types/8403 > > In the past, I used _random.Random for manual tests to compare static type > and heap types, check which one is mutable. > > C type _random.Random is inherited by Python type random.Random which is > mutable. Since _random.Random is not directly seen by developers, I don't > think that it's worth it to make it immutable. > > For the other types, I would not say that they are "built-in types" or > that it would be really bad to modify them. I would say that for the other > types, the "We are consenting adults" rule stands. You can hack a type for > a very specific need, but in this case you are on your own. > > For example, people love to hack AST. Maybe the fact that ast.AST became > mutable in Python 3.9 will unlock some crazy hack? > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue43908> > _______________________________________ > -- --Guido (mobile) ---------- title: array.array and re types must be immutable: add Py_TPFLAGS_IMMUTABLETYPE flag -> array.array should remain immutable: add Py_TPFLAGS_IMMUTABLETYPE flag _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43908> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
