[Python-Dev] bug or a feature?

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 01:34 PM 6/12/2008 +0200, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > As it happens, most objects' __dict__ slots are settable by default, and
> > *require* that you set it to a dict or subclass thereof.
>
>This is wrong for types:

Which is why I said "most" - to exclude types, and objects that don't 
have a __dict__ slot to begin with.


>I think there are good arguments for not allowing strings keys in type
>dicts, or at least leaving it up to the implementation.

That may well be, but there is nothing in Python's spec that I'm 
aware of that *forbids* it.  For example the type() constructor doc 
doesn't say anything about using string-only keys in the class dictionary.


>Using non-string
>keys in type dicts is relatively awkward and allowing them makes many
>interesting optimizations (like method caches) a _lot_ harder to get right.

Really?  Why?  Having non-string dict keys is NOT the same thing as 
having non-string attribute names, so attribute name lookups should 
be unaffected.  (Attribute names *are* required to be strings, and -- 
as far as I know -- always have been.)