On Wednesday 14 January 2009 02:22:45 am Paul Rubin wrote: > 2. There is also nothing inherent in a dynamic OO language that says > that class descriptors have to be mutable, any more than strings have > to be mutable (Python has immutable strings). I agree that being able > to modify class descriptors at runtime is sometimes very useful. The > feature shouldn't be eliminated from Python or else it wouldn't be > Python any more. But those occasions are rare enough that having to > enable the feature by saying (e.g.) "@dynamic" before the class > definition doesn't seem like a problem, both for encapsulation
Why don't you do it backwards? You *can* implement a metaclass that will remove the dynasmism from its instances. Do it - I can give you a starting point if you wish. But most of us are very happy with the dynamic nature of python... I chose python _because_ of it. > and because it can also improve performance. Btw, for performance, there is __slots__, with the side-effect that it forbids attribute creation 'on the fly'. -- Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie) Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH. http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list