Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> added the comment:
Thanks for the long post! Clearly there is more here than the eye can easily see. Nevertheless, I feel that, *in this case*, it's not likely that such a re-implementation will ever happen, so I think it is okay to constrain the future so we can guarantee (the ordering aspect of) the current behavior. The current behavior also *feels* natural, regardless of the validity of the OP's use case. The edge case of assignment to __bases__ is a good one to call out (in the docs and in the test) but I don't think the current behavior there is sufficiently dicey to change it or to exclude it from the guarantee. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34805> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
