"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:40 PM 3/10/2007 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> >Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I strongly feel that this makes *using* metaclasses way too complex. A
> > > person wanting to create a C struct or a database record should simply
> > > have to say "metaclass=cstruct" - they shouldn't have to declare a bunch
> > > of individual pieces, all of which have to match with each other.
> > > There's no utility in being able to "mix n' match" metaclasses and dicts.
> > >
> > > In any case, we're just going over old ground here.
> >
> >Great! If there is no need to mix and match metaclasses and dicts
> >arbitrarily, then there is no need to pass alternate parameters to the
> >dictionary construction method,
>
> Er, wha? Those two things are utterly unrelated.
I did have a post that was going to show that they were related, but
then I remembered that because of __metaclass__ assignment semantics, it
needs to necessarily have access to the class body dictionary at the
point of assignment, so the compiler, etc., cannot be taught to extract
everything. Syntax is necessary to offer an ordered dictionary
semantics.
I guess I'll toss my hat in for +0 on...
class foo(..., metaclass=..., arbitrary_keyword=i_suppose):
...
- Josiah
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
