On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 November 2017 at 09:41, Guido van Rossum <gu...@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 +
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/