On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 15:38 +0200, Christian Tanzer wrote: > > Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:56 +0200, Christian Tanzer wrote: > > [...] > > > I'd propose to write that check as > > > > > > parents = [b for b in bases if isinstance(b, ModelBase)] > > > if parents: > > > return super(ModelBase, cls).__new__ (cls, name, bases, attrs) > > > ... > > > > > > Simpler, and it allows several independent `Model` classes using the > > > same metaclass, if that's ever necessary. > > > > We need the parents list to be properly constructed later in the > > function, so the current code saves having to do a second iteration. > > It's nice that we can also use the "parents" list to do the early > > bailout. > > But my proposal doesn't change that: for all classes `c`, > `issubclass(c, P)` is equivalent to `isinstance(c, P.__class__)`. > > You still have exactly the same result in `parents` as with the > existing code -- the computation is just simpler and more general > because no hardcoded class name is used anymore (and no NameError to > deal with).
You are, of course, correct. Fixed in r7846. Thanks for the changes. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
