Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>> On May 09, 2012, at 07:44 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> (*) 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?
>> If, as Nick proposes in a different message, it actually does make better
>> sense to put this as a module-level function, then putting `class` in the name
>> makes sense. types.{new,create,build,construct}_class() works for me, in
>> roughly that order.
>
> Yeah, as a result of the discussion in this thread, and considering
> the parallel with "imp.new_module()", I'm going to update the tracker
> issue to propose the addition of "types.new_class()" as the dynamic
> API for the PEP 3115 metaclass protocol.
>
> The question now moves to the implementation strategy - whether we
> redirect to the C machinery as originally proposed (either via
> __build_class__ or a new _types module) or just reimplement the
> algorithm in pure Python. The latter is actually quite an appealing
> concept, since it becomes a cross-check on the native C version.
+1 to a pure Python version.
Cheers,
Mark
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