In [EMAIL PROTECTED], K.S.Sreeram
wrote:
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
But why use a metaclass? If the meta class is only applied to *one*
class, can't you do at class level whatever the metaclass is doing!?
The very fact that you can put a loop inside __metaclass__ may be reason
enough
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
K.S.Sreeram wrote:
The very fact that you can put a loop inside __metaclass__ may be reason
enough for a one-off metaclass.
Ah, it's not the loop but the access to the `dict`! You can write loops
at class level too but I haven't found a way to access `X`s
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], K.S.Sreeram
wrote:
BTW, if that's what gangesmaster is after then it seem to work already.
Put ``(object)`` after ``X`` and return something, say 'a' and 'b', in the
getters and the example prints 'a' and 'b'.
btw, the example seems to work even with old-style
just something i thought looked nice and wanted to share with the rest
of you:
class x(object):
... def __metaclass__(name, bases, dict):
... print hello
... return type(name, bases, dict)
...
hello
instead of defining a separate metaclass function/class, you can do
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], gangesmaster
wrote:
just something i thought looked nice and wanted to share with the rest
of you:
class x(object):
... def __metaclass__(name, bases, dict):
... print hello
... return type(name, bases, dict)
...
hello
instead of
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], gangesmaster
wrote:
just something i thought looked nice and wanted to share with the rest
of you:
class x(object):
... def __metaclass__(name, bases, dict):
... print hello
...
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
But why use a metaclass? If the meta class is only applied to *one*
class, can't you do at class level whatever the metaclass is doing!?
The very fact that you can put a loop inside __metaclass__ may be reason
enough for a one-off metaclass.
Here's a contrived
