(Sorry I'm so late to this discussion.)
I think that it's important to take into account the fact that PEP 3115
doesn't require namespaces to implement anything more than __setitem__ and
__getitem__ (with the latter not even needing to do anything but raise
KeyError).
Among other things, this
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 12:55 AM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
(Sorry I'm so late to this discussion.)
I think that it's important to take into account the fact that PEP 3115
doesn't require namespaces to implement anything more than __setitem__ and
__getitem__ (with the latter not
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 12:55 AM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
Personally, I think __build_class__ should be explicitly exposed and
supported, if for no other reason than that it allows one to re-implement
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 04:17, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, just create a new tracker issue and assign it to me. You already
know better than most what the _prepare() step needs to do :)
I've created http://bugs.python.org/issue14588, and attached the first
version of a patch. I
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 16:10, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
In reviewing a fix for the metaclass calculation in __build_class__
[1], I realised that PEP 3115 poses a potential problem for the common
practice of using type(name, bases, ns) for dynamic class creation.
Specifically, if
/me pages thoughts from 12 months ago back into brain...
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 16:10, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Initially I was going to suggest making __build_class__ part of the
language definition
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 13:48, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
/me pages thoughts from 12 months ago back into brain...
Sorry about that, I planned to do this earlier...
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 16:10, Nick
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 13:48, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
/me pages thoughts from 12 months ago back into brain...
Sorry about that, I planned to do this earlier...
No worries - good to have someone
In reviewing a fix for the metaclass calculation in __build_class__
[1], I realised that PEP 3115 poses a potential problem for the common
practice of using type(name, bases, ns) for dynamic class creation.
Specifically, if one of the base classes has a metaclass with a
significant __prepare__()
