On 3/8/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, there is a purely cosmetic argument about how metaclasses ought
> to be specified syntactically, which I won't go into in any detail. Most
> of the proposals centered around what I will call 'Class Definition
> Keyword Arguments' (CDKA), in othe
Those look like use cases for metaclasses, but I don't see how they
require setting a custom dict *while the class suite is being
executed*. The metaclass can create a new dict from its dict argument
and use the new dict to construct the class.
On 3/9/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
At 07:06 AM 3/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Those look like use cases for metaclasses, but I don't see how they
>require setting a custom dict *while the class suite is being
>executed*.
The main use case for that is to know what order the items were defined in;
currently there's no way
On 3/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:06 AM 3/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >Those look like use cases for metaclasses, but I don't see how they
> >require setting a custom dict *while the class suite is being
> >executed*.
>
> The main use case for that is to know
> Bill Janssen wrote:
> > Calling a method on an object doesn't seem like duck-typing to
> > me, though.
>
> It's duck typing in the sense that you don't have to
> formally declare the object as conforming to some
> interface before you can call the method.
Oh, OK. I'm against (mandatory) type d
Here's my proposal for what additional work should be done with respect
to generic functions in Python 3000.
1) In the Python 3000 branch, do nothing at the current time. The 3.0
branch already has sufficient hooks to allow 3rd-party developers to
create their own generic function implementatio
I had a conversation with Guido last night at the Python user's group
meeting, and we hashed out some of the details of how metaclasses should
work. I've gone ahead and written up a PEP, which I present for your review.
PEP: xxx
Title: Metaclasses in P
On 2/28/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Jack Diederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > History and Implementation
> > ==
> >
> > Class decorators were originally proposed in PEP318 [1]_ and were rejected
> > by Guido [2]_ for lack of use ca
On 3/9/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PEP: xxx
> Title: Metaclasses in Python 3000
Thanks for writing this.
> This attribute is a method named __metacreate__, which is invoked
> before the evaluation of the class body, and which has the
> following form:
>
> classdict
On 3/9/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a conversation with Guido last night at the Python user's group
> meeting, and we hashed out some of the details of how metaclasses should
> work. I've gone ahead and written up a PEP, which I present for your review.
> ---
On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Talin wrote:
> 2) Backport the argument annotations patch to the 2.X series and
> get it
> out to the public as quickly as possible. (According to the
> conversation
> I had with Guido, this should be relatively easy since the annotations
> patch was one of the fir
On 3/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:18 PM 3/9/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> >Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
> The only group the change benefits is people writing *new* code -- so give
> them a new function.
Actually, it's worse than that. The only group the change benefi
On 3/9/07, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Talin wrote:
> > 2) Backport the argument annotations patch to the 2.X series and
> > get it
> > out to the public as quickly as possible. (According to the
> > conversation
> > I had with Guido, this should be relat
On 3/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Talin wrote:
> > > 2) Backport the argument annotations patch to the 2.X series and
> > > get it
> > > out to the public as quickly as possible. (According
On 3/9/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It is unlikely that you will be able to write both code that is both
valid Python 2.6 source code and valid Python 3.0 source code".
Please see
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-February/071372.html (and
subsequent messages, if you w
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:21:49PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 2/28/07, Jack Diederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> History and Implementation
> >> ==
> >>
> >> Class decorators were originally proposed
On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With tuple parameters removed, there would still be divergence in
>> 2.X.
>
> But not much; we could drop the annotation feature for tuple
> parameters (since it won't survive in 3.0) and w
I got lots of feedback on the PEP at PyCon and the two main responses
were "heck yeah!" and "what does a class decorator look like?"
I've added some simple examples for the "what is?" and some other
examples that should help explain the "heck yeah" responses too.
I'm cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
You need to run this through a spellchecker; I noticed at least a
dozen typos. Other comments inline.
Collin Winter
On 3/9/07, Jack Diederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PEP: 3XXX
> Title: Class Decorators
> Version: 1
> Last-Modified: 28-Feb-2007
> Authors: Jack Diederich
> Implementation: SF#1
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:44:36PM -0800, Talin wrote:
> I had a conversation with Guido last night at the Python user's group
> meeting, and we hashed out some of the details of how metaclasses should
> work. I've gone ahead and written up a PEP, which I present for your review.
> --
Bill Janssen wrote:
> Oh, OK. I'm against (mandatory) type declarations. However, I do
> believe that the object's type should have to include the expected
> interface for the method invocation to succeed.
I don't understand what you mean by that. If there is no
formal embodiment of interfaces,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 06:19:49PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
> >History and Implementation
> >==
> >
> >Class decorators were originally proposed alongside function decorators
> >in PEP318 [1]_ and were rejected by Guido [2]_ for lack of use cases.
> >Two years later he sa
Talin wrote:
> 3) At some point, pick the best / most popular generic function package
> and formally make it a part of Python 3.
Shouldn't there be
2.5) At some point, decide whether we want generic
functions as a formal feature at all.
--
Greg
_
[SNIP]
> class FormFactory(Form):
> id_to_form = {} # { account_id : { form_id : form_class } }
> @staticmethod
> def register(cls, account_id, form_id):
> FormFactory.id_to_form.setdefault(cls.account_id, {})
> assert form_id not in FormFactory.id_to_form[cls.account_id
Talin wrote:
>class Foo(base1, base2, metaclass=mymeta):
> ...
-1 on this syntax, I think it's ugly.
Alternative proposals:
class Foo(base1, base2) as MyMeta:
...
or
class Foo(base1, base2) = MyMeta:
...
>class Foo(base1, base2, metaclass=mymeta, priv
Jack Diederich wrote:
> I am a very big fan of ordered dicts in classes. One possibility is that
> suites in classes always store their order in a special dict that keeps a
> side list of key order. A final invisible class decorator around
> every class would then toss out the order and leave o
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> I don't recall ripping them out, but it's worth trying to do that --
> they really shouldn't be needed for modern extensionmodules (2.2+).
>
> On 3/7/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While reviewing the patch for __dir__() (which I'll apply then, since it
27 matches
Mail list logo
