Finn Mason added the comment:
Thank you for the suggestions.
>From what I could tell, the cited python-ideas discussion was more about
>checking the signature of a method. However, an issue cited by the ex-BDFL
>(issue9731) was helpful. It's a similar idea that verifies that a class
Éric Araujo added the comment:
FYI there was a ticket and a discussion before:
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-id...@python.org/thread/FCGDSVWHIJHBYKS2O4RHZVLXCGSGBLQH/#FCGDSVWHIJHBYKS2O4RHZVLXCGSGBLQH
Should be reviewed to see the arguments made and determine if things have
Ken Jin added the comment:
@finnjavier08 sorry, I'd misinterpreted your original message. Thanks for
clarifying your intent!
> I'd be happy to do the implementation and pull request once approval is given
> and a module is decided on.
I can't comment because I'm not an expert on
Finn Mason added the comment:
I strongly feel that `check_methods` shouldn't be in collections.abc, even
though that's where it's originally found, because it's not related
specifically to collections but to ABCs and classes in general. I would prefer
for it to be implemented in `abc` or
New submission from Finn Mason :
In _collections_abc.py is a private function titled `_check_methods`. It takes
a class and a number of method names (as strings), checks if the class has all
of the methods, and returns NotImplemented if any are missing. The code is
below:
```
def
