| From: |
| "Eric V. Smith" <eric-AT-trueblade.com> |
| To: |
| guido-AT-python.org |
| Subject: |
| Re: Second post: PEP 557, Data Classes |
| Date: |
| Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:35:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID: |
| <b9d46d61-3896-9cbe-fc0a-5f4d808ca604@trueblade.com> |
| Cc: |
| Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan-AT-gmail.com>, "python-dev-AT-python.org" <python-dev-AT-python.org> |
On 11/28/2017 8:31 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 4:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Hm. Maybe for the ordering comparisons we could defer to the class
>> with the longest list of fields, as long as there's a subtype
>> relationship? That way b<c and c>b would be equivalent, and both would
>> use C.__gt__. Which had better not reject this on the basis that other
>> is not an instance of a subclass of C.
>>
>> IIRC there's already something in the interpreter that tries the most
>> derived class first for binary operators -- that may force our hand here.
>
> I'm leaning toward doing the same thing attrs does. They have much more
> experience with this.
Except that given Hynek's response in
https://github.com/ericvsmith/dataclasses/issues/51#issue...,
I'm just going to leave it as-is, with a strict type requirement for all
6 methods.
Eric.
