Thanks for pointing out all those mistakes. I think I'm already starting
to grasp all of the python magic going on in there.
Parenthetical: I don't normally recommend this style, since it
obscures the fact that you're using a custom metaclass to the user.
That is something the user probably would benefit from knowing, if for
no other reason than so they can make a mental note about where to
look first if something goes wrong. I prefer to make the user use the
__metaclass__ attribute.
Really just personal preference I think. I'm not really a friend of
declaring variables if there is a more "intuitive" way.
class HBar(Decorator):
def __init__(self, number):
Decorator.__init__(self)
Ok, at this point you have to ask yourself what you want to do,
because the solution you choose will involve trade-offs.
Yes, it was probably a bad example. I decided not to call the Decorator
's __init__ method in my new version (which I have posted as a reply to
the reply of Maric Michaud).
You will note that Decorator does not define __init__. In fact,
object.__init__ will be called, which does nothing. If you think that
all classes with DecoratorType as their metaclass will be a direct
subclass of Decorator, you can get away with not calling
Decorator.__init__ at all.
Now, inside my new version, I have a class which inherits from both
Decorator and Window, out of which the __init__ for Decorator is not
called. Does this prove to be a problem?
Probably the best piece of advice is "Don't try to use Decorator
pattern". :)
Well, I decided on the decorator pattern, because I want to be able to
change the behavior of classes during run-time. I did not really find
any other pattern which would let me do that.
Regards,
Thomas K.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
