In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The principle behind this is pretty much "it was just a language design > decision". Yes, and I'm not taking issue with the decision, just pointing out that the desire to do things differently is not necessarily perverse. > P.S. If you want to be truly evil, you could use a class hook to get > the modifying in-place behavior: > > def modify_in_place(name,bases,clsdict): > cls = globals()[name] > for attr,val in clsdict.iteritems(): > setattr(cls,attr,val) > return cls > > # Replace second C2 class above with this > class C2: > __metaclass__ = modify_in_place > def m1(self): h() Doesn't work for me: >>> c2 <__main__.C2 instance at 0x51e850> >>> c2.m1() G >>> class C2: ... __metaclass__ = modify_in_place ... def m1(self): print 'Q' ... >>> c2.m1() G >>> C2().m1() Q rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
