On Jan 24, 12:33 am, Hrvoje Niksic <hnik...@xemacs.org> wrote: > Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> writes: > > Anyway, all you're doing is distracting attention from my claim that > > instance objects wouldn't need to be locked. They wouldn't, no > > matter how mutable you insist these objects whose bits would never > > change are. > > Only if you're not implementing Python, but another language that > doesn't support __slots__ and assignment to instance.__dict__.
I am only going to say all Python types prior to 3.0 support classes without __slots__, so while I agree that this would be a different language, it wouldn't necessarily be "not Python". (Python, of course, is what GvR says Python is, and he isn't going to say that the language I presented is Python. No worries there! :) I'm only saying that it is conceivably similar enough to be a different version of Python. It would be a different language in the same way that Python 2.6 is a different language from Python 3.0.) Incidentally, the proposal does allow slots to be defined, but only for actual mutable types, not for ordinary class instances. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
