>
> I wonder if it would make sense to go further and merge *both* of these
> features into regular classes.
>
> Checking for @abstractmethod in type.__new__ surely can't be that expensive,
> can it?
>
But it affects startup time.
It iterate all of the namespace and tries `getattr(obj,
`__isabstractmethod__`, False).
It means massive AttributeErrors are raised and cleared while loading
large library.
OTOH, I have another idea:
class AbstractFoo:
def foo(self):
...
__abstractmethods__ = ("foo",)
In this idea, `type.__new__` can check only `__abstractmethods__`.
> And if regular types supported 'register', then it would allow for a
> potentially simpler and faster implementation. Right now,
> superclass.register(subclass) has to work by mutating superclass, because
> that's the special ABCMeta object, and this leads to complicated stuff with
> weakrefs and all that. But if this kind of nominal inheritance was a basic
> feature of 'type' itself, then it could work by doing something like
>
> subclass.__nominal_bases__ += (superclass,)
>
> and then precalculating the "nominal mro" just like it already precalculates
> the mro, so issubclass/isinstance would remain fast.
>
I don't like it.
In 99.9% of my classes, I don't need register based subclassing.
> I guess enabling this across the board might cause problems for C classes
> whose users currently use isinstance to get information about the internal
> memory layout.
>
> -n
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
