[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- resolution: -> not a bug status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: FWIW, the decision to use __ to make the implementation more private was done at Guido's recommendation. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: In general, the __attributes and _attributes are already considered to be private, so I don't see the point. Aside from this one user that is never been necessary and he already knows that it doesn't work. Re-reading the thread, the issue isn't that he

[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: One other thought: The purpose of the source links is to help people learn. It in no way every implies that someone should hack private implementation details. We have a number of modules that have both a pure python implementation and a replacement

[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

R. David Murray added the comment: What I'm suggesting it would be worth adding to the source code is a simple comment before the class definition for OrderedDict that says "This Python code may be overridden by an accelerated version of this class." The idea being to prevent confusion if

[issue25315] Make it clear in the collections Python source code that OrderedDict may be overridden

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > What I'm suggesting it would be worth adding to the source code is > a simple comment before the class definition for OrderedDict that > says "This Python code may be overridden by an accelerated > version of this class." Sorry, I disagree. We've never