Unsure why you present this as a question; I'm not sure anyone has thought much about it yet. I wonder if the call shouldn't be made like this:
__prepare__(name, bases, **kwargs) so that if you only expect certain specific keyword args you can define it like this: def __prepare__(name, base, metaclass=X): ... On 3/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/9/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do the keywords have to follow the metaclass keyword, or is order > > > irrelevant? While order makes sense, it would be a new precedent for > > > keyword arguments to have an important order. > > > > I'd like the syntax between () to be identical to that for a function > > call, i.e. including *args and **kwds. That way the cognitive load for > > the user is the smallest. Sorting out the semantics of the keywords is > > purely a runtime activity anywaty. > > Just to clarify, while the syntax between the () in the class > definition will be the same as that of a function call, the signature > of the method called will be:: > __prepare__(name, args, kwargs) > not > __prepare__(name, *args, **kwargs) > right? > > STeVe > -- > I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a > tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. > --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
