When you apply the "what if everyone did this" rule, it looks like a bad idea
(or alternatively, what if two people who weren't expecting anyone else to do
this did it).
Monkeypatching is fairly blatantly taking advantage of the object model in a
way that is not "supported" and cannot behave well in the context of everyone
doing it, whereas inheritance or mixins are safe. Making a dedicated syntax or
decorator for patching is saying that we (the language) think you should do it.
(The extension_method decorator sends exactly the wrong message about what it's
doing.)
Enabling a __class__ variable within the scope of the definition would also
solve the motivating example, and is less likely to lead to code where you need
to review multiple modules and determine whole-program import order to figure
out why your calls do not work.
Top-posted from my Windows Phone
-----Original Message-----
From: "Markus Meskanen" <markusmeska...@gmail.com>
Sent: 2/10/2017 10:18
To: "Paul Moore" <p.f.mo...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Python-Ideas" <python-ideas@python.org>; "Steve Dower"
<steve.do...@python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Fwd: Define a method or function attributeoutsideof
a class with the dot operator
Well yes, but I think you're a bit too fast on labeling it a mistake to use
monkey patching...
On Feb 10, 2017 18:15, "Paul Moore" <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 16:09, Markus Meskanen <markusmeska...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if people are gonna do it anyways with the tools provided (monkey
> patching), why not provide them with better tools?
Because encouraging and making it easier for people to make mistakes
is the wrong thing to do, surely?
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
