[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86566 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/glossary.rst Doc/library/inspect.rst Lib/inspect.py Lib/test/test_inspect.py Misc/NEWS Misc/python-wing4.wpr (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Nov 21 04:52:19 CET 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86566 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/glossary.rst Doc/library/inspect.rst Lib/inspect.py Lib/test/test_inspect.py Misc/NEWS Misc/python-wing4.wpr
- Next message: [Python-Dev] r86570 - in python/branches/py3k: Lib/unittest/case.py Lib/unittest/test/test_case.py Misc/NEWS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
I'll see if I'm still of the same opinion after I sleep on it, but my first impression of the docs was that they slightly oversold the strength of the "doesn't execute arbitrary code" aspect of the new function. The existing caveats were all relating to when getattr() and getattrstatic() might give different answers, while the additional caveats I was suggesting related to cases where arbitrary code may still be executed. I'm happy to change the wording to make the promise less strong.
Your latest changes may have actually made the stronger wording accurate (I certainly can't think of any loopholes off the top of my head). If you did still want to soften the wording, I'd be inclined to replace the word "avoids" with "minimises" in the appropriate places.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86566 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/glossary.rst Doc/library/inspect.rst Lib/inspect.py Lib/test/test_inspect.py Misc/NEWS Misc/python-wing4.wpr
- Next message: [Python-Dev] r86570 - in python/branches/py3k: Lib/unittest/case.py Lib/unittest/test/test_case.py Misc/NEWS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]