Barry Alan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: My concern and yours is that this is not backwards compatible. I would hate to see "random" failures of extensions written using PyCXX because of this.
I'm tempted to says that I'll keep PyCXX 5.x as is for Python 2.x and leave all the changes in semantics for PyCXX 6.0 that will support Python 3.0. And in Python 3.0 this problem does not exist by design. I don't think you example proves anything. Python does not check at the pure python level at all. >>> class X: ... def __long__( self ): ... return "Hello" ... >>> long( X() ) 'Hello' >>> You get all you deserve if you define __long__ and break its API. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3777> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
