>>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> writes:
GvR> Let x be an object, C its class, and M C's class. So,
| x.__class__ is C
| C.__class__ is M
GvR> Then x's methods are described in C.__dict__, and C's methods
GvR> are described in M.__dict__.
GvR> The problem is that if you write C.spam, there could be two
GvR> spams: one in C.__dict__, one in M.__dict__. Which one to
GvR> use?
If you use naming to generally distinguish, and have a lookup chain
that first found it in C.__dict__ and then looked in M.__dict__, you
could control what happens when the name is in both dicts by using a
more explicit lookup, e.g. C.__dict__['meth']
vs. C.__class__.__dict__['meth']
But maybe that's too ugly.
GvR> How does Smalltalk resolve this?
I don't remember, but I do remember that ObjC had the same concepts,
and it used a distinguishing marker on the method definition to say
whether the method was a class method (`+') or instance method (`-'),
e.g.
+ void some_class_method ...
- void an_instance_method
Another question: presumably when I write
class Foo: pass
Foo is implicitly given the built-in metaclass M, but say I wanted to
define a class Foo with a different metaclass, how would I spell this?
I think at one point I suggested a semi-ugly syntactic hack, where
`class' was actually a namespace and you could add new metaclasses to
it. So you could write something like
class.WeirdClass Foo: pass
and now Foo's metaclass would be WeirdClass.
waiting-for-the-bottom-turtle-to-burp-ly y'rs,
-Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4