On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Cousson, Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Defining it as a nested class saves you one line >> of code, but IMHO makes the result just a bit more cluttered, while >> reducing the elegance of reusing the metaclass. > > The whole point of nested class is to avoid polluting the namespace with > classes that are only used locally. So the argument about the elegance of > reusing is not very valid in that case.
There is no point of nested classes because nested classes _are not_ supported by python. They are simply an artifact of not actively denying the syntax non-globally. I would fully support a change to the language to actively forbid a class definition that is not module-level. > I agree that they are other ways using module to avoid namespace pollution, > but in some case it is easier to use nested class instead and keep everything > in the same file. I don't consider it pollution. If you want it considered "private" to the module, name it with an underscore. > In my case, I'm trying to use a similar approach as XIST's one, meaning using > Python class to model hierarchical data. So clearly nested class is a very > nice and easy understandable way to do that. I don't find that this is clear in anyway. I can't imagine why you'd think a nested class is even useful here, rather than an instance with some understandable attributes. I've seen a lot of places nested classes are used and not one of them that should be been doing it. But, on that note, there is a point where a discussion is obviously not going to resolve with either side changing their minds. This is obviously such a case. -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/ Follow me if you're into that sort of thing: http://www.twitter.com/ironfroggy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
