Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2006-03-30, Michele Simionato schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I cannot find the reference now, but I remember Tim Peters saying some >> time ago that the only >> reason why FunctionType is not subclassable is that nobody bothered to >> write a patch for it. > > The question then is, why is there a need for such a patch? > > I mean when types and classes became unified and ints, lists ... became > subclassable one would think that in all those new code that had to be > written, it wouldn't have been that difficult to see to it that all > types became subclassable. I find it hard to believe that in the > unification period the decision to make one type subclassable and > an other not was made solely on the basis that a patch was submitted > for the first but not for the other.
It's not that hard to understand, is it? Whoever made the builtin types new- style types didn't add the BASETYPE flag to function or slice. Apparently he thought it wasn't worth the effort as he couldn't imagine a use case for it. So, when someone had liked them to be subclassable, he'd have written a patch. Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
