Kaydet (Commit) 3eea25c3 authored tarafından Guido van Rossum's avatar Guido van Rossum

Reword the text on the demise of __dynamic__ somewhat, correcting a

typo.
üst a7e1f43b
...@@ -5,13 +5,14 @@ Release date: 28-Sep-2100 ...@@ -5,13 +5,14 @@ Release date: 28-Sep-2100
Type/class unification and new-style classes Type/class unification and new-style classes
- New-style classes are now always dynamic (except for built-in and - New-style classes are now always dynamic (except for built-in and
extension types). There was no longer a performance penalty, and I extension types). There is no longer a performance penalty, and I
no longer see another reason to keep this baggage around. One relic no longer see another reason to keep this baggage around. One relic
remains: the __dict__ or a new-style class is a read-only proxy. remains: the __dict__ of a new-style class is a read-only proxy; you
You must set the class's attribute to modify. As a consequence, the must set the class's attribute to modify it. As a consequence, the
__defined__ attribute of new-style types no longer exists, for lack __defined__ attribute of new-style types no longer exists, for lack
of need: there is once again only one __dict__ (although in the of need: there is once again only one __dict__ (although in the
future a __cache__ may be resurrected in its place). future a __cache__ may be resurrected with a similar function, if I
can prove that it actually speeds things up).
- C.__doc__ now works as expected for new-style classes (in 2.2a4 it - C.__doc__ now works as expected for new-style classes (in 2.2a4 it
always returned None, even when there was a class docstring). always returned None, even when there was a class docstring).
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment