On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 6/7/2014 10:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 7 June 2014 04:50, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > >> Curious as to what lead to that implementation approach? What does it buy > >> that couldn't have been obtained by a mixin providing the functionality? > > > > In principle, you could get the equivalent of collections.namedtuple > > through dynamically constructed classes. In practice, that's actually > > easier said than done, so the fact the current implementation works > > fine for almost all purposes acts as a powerful disincentive to > > rewriting it. The current implementation is also *really* easy to > > understand, while writing out the dynamic type creation explicitly > > would likely require much deeper knowledge of the type machinery to > > follow. > > As proof that it's harder to understand, here's an example of that > dynamically creating functions and types: [...]
I wonder how a hybrid approach would work? Use a dynamically-created class, but then construct the __new__ method using exec and inject it into the new class. As far as I can see, it's only __new__ that benefits from the exec approach. Anyone tried this yet? Is it worth an experiment? -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
