On 5/18/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Chermside schrieb:
>
> >Unfortunately, for implementation reasons you can't modify most
> >built-in (and some user-defined) classes in this fashion:
> >
> > >>> int.func2 = func2
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > Fil
Going through and cleaning up failing tests in the p3yk branch...
Is there any interest in keeping new.instance()? It's defined as
equivalent to types.InstanceType, which is in turn defined as
(effectively)...
"""
class _C:
pass
InstanceType = type(_C())
"""
Since _C under Python 3 will be
It should be discarded. You can already create instances bypassing
__init__ by calling __new__.
On 5/26/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Going through and cleaning up failing tests in the p3yk branch...
>
> Is there any interest in keeping new.instance()? It's defined as
> equivalent
On 5/26/06, Michael Chermside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adding a
> > method isprime() or iseven() to a subclass of int will suddenly be lost
> > in the resulting object after an operation as long as it is not
> > overwritten to return the
On 5/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It should be discarded. You can already create instances bypassing
> __init__ by calling __new__.
SF patch #1495675 (http://python.org/sf/1495675) does the trick; I've
assigned it to you.
Collin Winter
_
Collin Winter wrote:
> Is there interest in keeping new.instance()'s functionality (that is,
> in allowing users to create instances of a type, bypassing __init__ in
> the process)?
Doesn't C.__new__ already do this for a new-style class C?
--
Greg
___
