[issue3560] redundant "base" field in memoryview objects

[Martin v. Löwis]

Martin v. Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> added the comment:

> Because it should be fixed before 3.0 final?

And why should that be done? IMO, this can still
be fixed in 3.1, or not a fixed at all - I fail to
see the true bug (apart from the minor redundancy).

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3560>
_______________________________________