Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > You can get the same semantics with...
> >
> > class NAME(_(TYPE), ARGS):
> > BLOCK
> >
> > And a suitably defined _. Remember, not every X line function should be
> > made a builtin or syntax.
>
> And this would be an extremely fragile hack that is entirely dependent on the
> murky rules regarding how Python chooses the metaclass for the newly created
> class. Ensuring that the metaclass of the class returned by "_" was always
> the
> one chosen would be tricky at best and impossible at worst.
The rules for which metaclass is used is listed in the metaclass
documentation. I personally never claimed it was perfect, and neither
is this one...
class NAME(_(TYPE, ARGS)):
BLOCK
But it does solve the problem without needing syntax (and fixes any
possible metaclass order choices).
> Even if it *could* be done, I'd never want to see a hack like that in
> production code I had anything to do with.
That's perfectly reasonable.
> (I put the metaclass after the keyword, because, unlike a function decorator,
> the metaclass is invoked *before* the class is created, and because you're
> only allowed one explicit metaclass)
Perhaps, but because the metaclass can return anything (in this case, it
returns a property), being able to modify the object that is created may
be desireable...at which point, we may as well get class decorators for
the built-in chaining.
- Josiah
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
