New submission from Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard: The following statement is in the Language Reference for Custom classes:
> __bases__ is a tuple (possibly empty or a singleton) containing the base > classes AFAIK, ``object.__bases__`` is the only object for which ``__bases__`` is empty and it isn't a *custom* class. Attempts to create a class and assign __bases__ to an empty tuple is checked to enforce inheritance from ``object``. This *seems* to be something that slipped through when the docs were created for Python 3.0? I'm curious to see if this can actually be empty, if not, attached patch removes ''empty'' from the sentence. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation files: fixbasesdoc.patch keywords: patch messages: 283595 nosy: Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: __bases__ is a tuple (possibly empty or a singleton) versions: Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6, Python 3.7 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45962/fixbasesdoc.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29012> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
