Gregory Ewing wrote:
On 07/05/2010 11:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no
clue
what the "dict" of the current name space is.
Are you sure that's what you really want to know? The
'dict' argument to classobj() defines the attributes
On 07/05/2010 11:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
what the "dict" of the current name space is.
Are you sure that's what you really want to know? The
'dict' argument to classobj() defines the attributes
that you want the new c
Chris Rebert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
Slight tangent:
Note that both the `new` module and old-style classes (which are what
`classobj` produces) are deprecated.
To produce new-s
Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 07/05/2010 11:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
what the "dict" of the current name space is. I can name dicts of
imported modules, because their name exists in the current name space.
If, for instan
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
> I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
Slight tangent:
Note that both the `new` module and old-style classes (which are what
`classobj` produces) are deprecated.
To produce new-style classes dynamically, use
On 07/05/2010 11:07 AM, Anthra Norell wrote:
> I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
> what the "dict" of the current name space is. I can name dicts of
> imported modules, because their name exists in the current name space.
> If, for instance, I import a module
I try to use "new.new.classobj (name, baseclass, dict)" and have no clue
what the "dict" of the current name space is. I can name dicts of
imported modules, because their name exists in the current name space.
If, for instance, I import a module "service" then that module's name
space would be
