Message266673
| Author |
abarry |
| Recipients |
abarry, eryksun, ppperry, r.david.murray, steven.daprano |
| Date |
2016-05-30.03:57:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1464580665.19.0.121351620328.issue27157@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
|
| Content |
+1. I prefer that change, as using subclasses of `type` as if they were type itself never made sense to me. This shouldn't break existing code, but if it does, it was either a concealed bug or a very bad idea to begin with, and should be fixed either way.
Attached patch implements Eryk's suggestion. I haven't found any tests that checked for subclasses of type specifically (except tests testing for metaclass stuff), and I haven't added any either. |
|