From 3eea25c3fa3c004b1128e555f36263cda9ff71f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guido van Rossum Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:46:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Reword the text on the demise of __dynamic__ somewhat, correcting a typo. --- Misc/NEWS | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Misc/NEWS b/Misc/NEWS index 1e95283043..0a75c71dbb 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). -- 2.40.0