On 5 May 2013 10:49, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Tim Delaney > <timothy.c.dela...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Typo line 171: <Colro.blue: 3> >> >> > Fixed, thanks. > > > >> One thing I'd like to be clear in the PEP about is whether enum_type and >> _EnumDict._enum_names should be documented, or whether they're considered >> implementation details. >> >> > No, they should not. Not only are they implementation details, they are > details of the *reference implementation*, not the actual stdlib module. > The reference implementation will naturally serve as a basis for the stdlib > module, but it still has to undergo a review in which implementation > details can change. Note that usually we do not document implementation > details of stdlib modules, but this doesn't prevent some people from using > them if they really want to. >
I think it would be useful to have some guaranteed method for a sub-metaclass to get the list of enum keys before calling the base class __new__. Not being able to do so removes a large number of possible extensions (like auto-numbering). > In testing the below, I've also discovered a bug in the reference >> implementation - currently it will not handle an __mro__ like: >> > > Thanks! Tim - did you sign the contributor CLA for Python? Since the > reference implementation is aimed for becoming the stdlib enum eventually, > we'd probably need you to sign that before we can accept patches from you. > I have now (just waiting on the confirmation email). Haven't submitted a patch since the CLAs were started ... Tim Delaney
_______________________________________________ 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
