On 6/8/2014 7:31 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > 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?
I'm not sure what the benefit would be. Other than the ast manipulations for __new__, the rest of the non-exec code is easy to understand. Eric. _______________________________________________ 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
