On 3/15/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:26 PM 3/14/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >(It's a slightly
> >different function than currently; the current function *returns* the
> >locals, while the new one *takes* the locals as an argument; instead
> >of a LOAD_LOCALS opcod
At 06:26 PM 3/14/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>(It's a slightly
>different function than currently; the current function *returns* the
>locals, while the new one *takes* the locals as an argument; instead
>of a LOAD_LOCALS opcode we need a STORE_LOCALS opcode.)
Wouldn't it suffice to exec a
On 15 Mar 2007, at 04:33, Tony Lownds wrote:
> Does **kwds need to be passed to prepare and also to metaclass
> constructor?
> Removing that would make it easier to provide nice error messages.
> Custom __prepare__
> implementations can always store the **kwds that are needed in or
> on the
> d
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So I think it would be acceptable to this into a call to a new
> (hidden) built-in function, named __build_class__.
>
>
> What do folks think?
Looks good to me. It'll also provide some interesting
new possibilities for overriding it in creative ways. :-)
--
Greg
__
On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The PEP proposes that the class statement accepts keyword arguments,
> *args, and **kwds syntax as well as positional bases. This is a bit
> messy to compile and execute, but we already have this, of course, in
> the code for calling regular
On 3/14/07, Robert Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > The PEP proposes that the class statement accepts
> > keyword arguments, *args, and **kwds syntax as well
> > as positional bases. This is a bit messy to compile
> > and execute, but we already have this, of cour
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The PEP proposes that the class statement accepts
> keyword arguments, *args, and **kwds syntax as well
> as positional bases. This is a bit messy to compile
> and execute, but we already have this, of course, in
> the code for calling regular functions.
>
> So I think it
The PEP proposes that the class statement accepts keyword arguments,
*args, and **kwds syntax as well as positional bases. This is a bit
messy to compile and execute, but we already have this, of course, in
the code for calling regular functions.
So I think it would be acceptable to this into a ca
