On Tuesday 04 November 2003 02:09 am, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
...
> I'm not all that enthused about the metaclass usage, mainly because there's
> already an okay syntax (__metaclass__) for it. I'd rather that class
Hmmm -- why is:
class Foo:
__metaclass__ = MetaFoo
...
"ok", compared to e.g.:
class Foo is MetaFoo:
...
while, again for example,
def foo():
...
foo = staticmethod(foo)
is presumably deemed "not ok" compared to e.g.:
def foo() is staticmethod:
...
???
Both cases of current syntax do the job (perhaps not elegantly but they do)
and in both cases a new syntax would increase elegance.
> decorators (if added) were decorators in the same way as function
> decorators. Why? Because I think that correct, combinable class
> decorators are probably easier for most people to write than correct,
> combinable metaclasses, and they are more easily combined than metaclasses
> are.
Combinable metaclasses may not be trivial to write, but with multiple
inheritance it will often be feasible (except, presumably, when implied
layout or __new__ have conflicting requirements). Of course, not having use
cases of either custom metaclasses or class decorators in production use, the
discussion does risk being a bit abstract. Did you have any specific use case
in mind?
Alex
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