Hi Nicolas, On 2012-04-21, Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote: > At the same time, it's getting far enough from the KISS principle to > get me uncomfortable. Isn't the use of meta-meta classes overkill (and > thus potentially fragile, if we are not sure of a Python/Cython rock > solid support) for the problem at hand?
That's a reasonable question. One could argue that all what my proof-of-concept does is to do automatically/implicitly what is currently done explicitly anyway: Currently, we have to mix NestedClassMetaclass and ClasscallMetaclass (by deriving the latter from the former) and to mix DynamicClassMetaclass and ClasscallMetaclass by creating DynamicClasscallMetaclass (which is derived from both). My framework does the same. >From that perspective, dynamic metaclasses make programming easier (it is not needed to make definitions explicitly), in the same sense as dynamic classes (Rings().parent_class) make programming easier. But one could argue that "explicit is better than implicit". If we just see a finite number of applications, then explicitly programming these finitely many instances may be easier to understand than a general framework for an infinity of applications. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
