At 01:45 PM 5/16/03 -0800, Troy Melhase wrote: > > Jeremy> I think we decided this wasn't a pure bugfix :-). Some poor > > Jeremy> soul may have code that relies on being able to subclass a > > Jeremy> module. > > > > How about at least deprecating that feature in 2.2.3 and warning about it > > so that poor soul knows this won't be supported forever? > >I think I'm knocking on the poor-house door. > >Just last night, it occurred to me that modules could be made callable via >subclassing. This isn't about subclassing the module *type*, but about subclassing *modules*. Subclassing a module doesn't do anything useful. Subclassing the module *type* does, as you demonstrate. Python 2.3 still allows you to subclass the module type, even though it does not allow you to subclass modules. Now, if you *really* want to subclass a *module*, then you should check out PEAK's "module inheritance" technique that lets you define new modules in terms of other modules. It's useful for certain types of AOP/SOP techniques. But it's currently implemented using bytecode hacking, and is therefore evil. ;) Anyway, it doesn't rely on actually *subclassing* modules. Speaking of bytecode hacking, it would be so much easier to implement "portable magic" if there were a fast, easy to use, language-defined intermediate representation for Python code that one could hack with. And don't tell me to "use Lisp", either... ;)
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