On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:43:14PM -0700, Christopher Lee wrote: -> -> 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?
I'd like to be jealous and keep my metaphysical "lock" on seqdb, if you don't mind... I'll make the patch discrete & clean and send it on to you for review when I do it. So: I will. cheers, --titus -- C. Titus Brown, c...@msu.edu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
