Daniel Urban <[email protected]> added the comment:
I've attached a patch with more tests. I simply copied and modified the tests
about metaclass calculation and __prepare__ in test_descr.py, to create the
tested classes with operator.build_class (and not the class statement).
Although, there is one thing I'm not sure I like about the API in the current
patch: the dictionary corresponding to the keyword arguments of the class
statement cannot be passed as keyword arguments. For example, I can't write
this:
C = operator.build_class('C', (A, B), metaclass=MyMeta)
I have to write this:
C = operator.build_class('C', (A, B), {'metaclass': MyMeta})
(The reason for this is that the eval_body argument is the last.)
What would you think about the following signature for build_class?
build_class(name, bases=(), eval_body=None, **kwargs)
The fist 3 argument could be positional only, and all keyword arguments would
go into the dict. A downside is that the user would have to explicitly pass
None as the 3rd argument, if they don't need an eval_body, but need
keyword-arguments. Also, the 'bases' and the keyword arguments wouldn't be
close to each other as in the class statement...
----------
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file25263/operator_build_class_2.patch
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14588>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
