Barry A. Warsaw <ba...@python.org> added the comment: On Dec 25, 2017, at 18:51, Nick Coghlan <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > 3. A for-subclasses-only "self._clone()" API could work as follows: > > def _clone(self, new_instance=None): > if new_instance is None: > new_instance = type(self)() > # Clone state here > return new_instance > > Then subclasses could override *just* the instance creation part by doing: > > def _clone(self): > return super()._clone(self._make_instance()) > > While also being free to add their own additional state copying code if > needed.
So _make_instance() wouldn’t be part of ExitStack’s API, but subclasses could implement it (and name it whatever they want of course)? I’m not sure _clone() is the right name here since that implies to me state copy as well, and I totally agree with your other points. That’s why I originally suggested _make_instance() would be the name and API in the base class. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32145> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
