small sanity checks for user-defined mros

[mwhudson]

BPO	1163731
Nosy	@mwhudson, @loewis, @rhettinger
Files	mro-argh-safe-2.diff: mwh's patch Rename README to README.rst and enhance formatting #2

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2007-03-06.13:48:50.000>
created_at = <Date 2005-03-15.14:16:25.000>
labels = ['interpreter-core']
title = 'small sanity checks for user-defined mros'
updated_at = <Date 2007-03-06.13:48:50.000>
user = 'https://github.com/mwhudson'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2007-03-06.13:48:50.000>
actor = 'loewis'
assignee = 'anthonybaxter'
closed = True
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Interpreter Core']
creation = <Date 2005-03-15.14:16:25.000>
creator = 'mwh'
dependencies = []
files = ['6548']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 1163731
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 7.0
messages = ['47983', '47984', '47985', '47986', '47987', '47988', '47989']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['mwh', 'loewis', 'anthonybaxter', 'rhettinger']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'accepted'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue1163731'
versions = []

[mwhudson]

I the course of looking at bug 1153075 (which is a nastier problem) I
found a couple of sillies: no checking was done that a user defined
mro() function returns a sequence or that said sequence contains
types or classes. This patch fixes this, at least, and I'd like to get it
into 2.4.1.

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

Argh, this is what I meant to upload.

[rhettinger]

Logged In: YES
user_id=80475

Are you sure to want to backport this directly to a release
candidate without it having lived on the head for a while?
Seems a little dangerous at this stage for something that is
arguably not actually broken right now.

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

Well, possibly I'm rushing unecessarily.

OTOH "arguably not actually broken" is simply not true.

[rhettinger]

Logged In: YES
user_id=80475

If I read it correctly, you're adding useful argument
checking that is helpful when the user does something wrong.
However, nothing is currently preventing them from using it
correctly.

Unless it is a critical fix, it should probably go on the
head and ultimately into Py2.4.2.

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

You have appreciated that these are crash bugs? I think it's
a little bit more than "useful argument checking".

OTOH, essentially noone defines mro() functions so it's not
that big a deal.

[loewis]

This was committed as r41845, as part of bpo-1153075, AFAICT. mwh, if you think there are still changes pending, please resubmit.