From: Guido van Rossum Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:46:57 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Reword the text on the demise of __dynamic__ somewhat, correcting a X-Git-Tag: v2.2.1c1~1261 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3eea25c3fa3c004b1128e555f36263cda9ff71f0;p=thirdparty%2FPython%2Fcpython.git Reword the text on the demise of __dynamic__ somewhat, correcting a typo. --- diff --git a/Misc/NEWS b/Misc/NEWS index 1e95283043fb..0a75c71dbbaa 100644 --- a/Misc/NEWS +++ b/Misc/NEWS @@ -5,13 +5,14 @@ Release date: 28-Sep-2100 Type/class unification and new-style classes - New-style classes are now always dynamic (except for built-in and - extension types). There was no longer a performance penalty, and I + extension types). There is no longer a performance penalty, and I no longer see another reason to keep this baggage around. One relic - remains: the __dict__ or a new-style class is a read-only proxy. - You must set the class's attribute to modify. As a consequence, the + remains: the __dict__ of a new-style class is a read-only proxy; you + must set the class's attribute to modify it. As a consequence, the __defined__ attribute of new-style types no longer exists, for lack of need: there is once again only one __dict__ (although in the - future a __cache__ may be resurrected in its place). + future a __cache__ may be resurrected with a similar function, if I + can prove that it actually speeds things up). - C.__doc__ now works as expected for new-style classes (in 2.2a4 it always returned None, even when there was a class docstring).