Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Greg Ewing
<greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Something should
only go in a class namespace if it somehow relates to
that particular class, and other classes could might
implement it differently. That's not the case with
build_class().
Not true - you *will* get a type instance out of any sane call to
type.define().
You must have misunderstood me, because this doesn't
relate to the point I was making at all.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't see the justification
for making build_class() a static method rather than a
plain module-level function.
To my way of thinking, static methods are very rarely
justified in Python. The only argument so far in this
case seems to be "we can't make up our minds where else
to put it", which is rather lame.
A stronger argument would be if there were cases where
you wanted to define a subclass of type that implemented
build_class differently. But how would it get called, if
everyone who uses build_class invokes it using
'type.build_class()'?
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
