| msg203921 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *  |
Date: 2013-11-22 23:38 |
| BaseProtocol docstring describes it as an "ABC for base protocol class", but it is not actually an ABC in the technical sense. |
|
|
| msg203926 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2013-11-22 23:47 |
| Good question. I don't mind making these ABCs, but I don't think it's necessary to do it before beta1 (since it won't matter for most people). |
|
|
| msg204123 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-23 22:51 |
| I don't think it's necessary either. They don't *need* to be ABCs, but if they aren't the docstring should be fixed :) |
|
|
| msg204125 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2013-11-23 22:55 |
| I'm not sure that "ABC" implies "an instance of abc.ABC". It's still an abstract base class (in the usual definition of that concept) even if it doesn't enforce anything. I propose to close this as wontfix. |
|
|
| msg204137 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-24 00:37 |
| Well, IMHO it's better spelt "base class" if it isn't technically an ABC. At least I was personally a bit surprised at first. |
|
|
| msg204138 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2013-11-24 00:38 |
| Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the methods raise NotImplementedError. We can do better in the .rst docs though. |
|
|
| msg204139 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-24 00:39 |
| > Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the > methods raise NotImplementedError. We can do better in the .rst docs though. I didn't know what to do with it, so I didn't mention it at all in the .rst docs :-) |
|
|
| msg204801 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-30 11:13 |
| > Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the > methods raise NotImplementedError. Hmm, actually, the methods don't raise NotImplementedError, they just have default empty implementations. |
|
|
| msg204859 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2013-11-30 23:29 |
| You're right, I commented previously without reading the context. The classes defined in protocol.py are not ABCs, they are just base classes (and not mandatory, just convenient, because the transport *will* assume all methods are implemented, and call them without checking or catching NotImplementedError). I will correct the docstrings. |
|
|
| msg204860 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2013-11-30 23:35 |
| New changeset 5469e1a68dbd by Guido van Rossum in branch 'default': asyncio: Use Interface instead of ABC. Fixes issue 19726. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5469e1a68dbd |
|
|