On the other hand, I fear that if there is a standard "metamethod" decorator (named after Phillip's one), it will be misused. Reading the documentation will probably leave most programmers with the feeling "it's something magical to put on methods with __ in their names",
Possible solution: have it break when it's used in a non-subtype of 'type'. That is to say, when it's not used in a metaclass.
Finally, I wonder if turning all methods whatsoever into data descriptors (ouch! don't hit!) would be justifiable by the feeling that it's often bad style and confusing to override a method in an instance (as opposed to defining a method in an instance when there is none on the class).
Hm. I look at this the opposite way: sometimes it's nice to provide a default version of a callable that's supposed to be stuck on the object later, just like it's nice to have a default initial value for a variable supplied by the type. I don't think that doing away with this feature for non-special methods is a step forwards.
In all cases, I'm +1 on seeing built-in method objects (PyMethodDescr_Type)
become data descriptors ("classy descriptors?" :-).
Heh. :)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
