Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 10:11 AM 3/19/05 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
'Meta1' is NOT a subclass of 'Meta2', yet the exception is not thrown.
Instead, the explicitly requested metaclass has been silently replaced
with a subclass. I think the OP is justified in calling that 'suprising'.
This is pre
At 10:11 AM 3/19/05 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
If you are not getting an exception when breaking this rule, my guess
would be that your metaclasses are not inheriting from 'type', or else
are not invoking type's __new__ method. The logic to trigger the
exception lives in type
Nick Coghlan wrote:
If you are not getting an exception when breaking this rule, my guess
would be that your metaclasses are not inheriting from 'type', or else
are not invoking type's __new__ method. The logic to trigger the
exception lives in type's __new__ method - if that doesn't get invoked
Dirk Brenckmann wrote:
In consequence a programmer only is in control of the "metaclass" of his
class, if he decides it to be a subtype of all former metaclasses he used in
his class hierarchy, or if he uses the same metaclass as the superclass
does.
The behaviour is intentional, but you are correc
