RetroSearch Browse

Thu May 10 01:44:01 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-May/119408.html

On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:55 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that the statement form is referred to as a "class definition", and
> this is the dynamic equivalent, I'm inclined to go with "type.define()".
> Dynamic type definition is more consistent with existing terminology than
> dynamic type creation.

Yeah, but that's the statement form.  I think of the characters in the
.py file as the definition.  If I'm creating a class dynamically...I'm
creating(*) it, not defining it.

I don't think it's a big deal, though.  Either word will work.

--David

(*) Actually, come to think of it, I probably refer to it as
"constructing" the class, rather than creating or defining it.
It's the type equivalent of constructing an instance, perhaps?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-May/119408.html below:

[Python-Dev] Adding types.build_class for 3.3