On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:34 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote: > I don't think > > class SomeClass(...): > __invert__ = classutil.standard_invert > ... > _inverseClass = FooBar > > is an obvious construct, although I do understand why you defined > things > that way. How about, > > __invert__ = classutil.lazy_create(FooBar) > > instead, for example? Then FooBar would be obviously and directly > connected to __invert__.
OK, I see how this is clearer in a single line than setting __invert__ and _inverseClass in two consecutive lines in my original code. Your lazy_create() would return a callable function that behaves like my existing standard_invert. Do you want to implement this, or should I? -- Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to pygr-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pygr-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
