Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Along similar lines, I'd be marginally happier with:
>>
>> class Bob(meta=Planet): pass
>
> Is there some way we could remove the word "meta"
> from the syntax altogether? I don't mind using
> it in conversation, but it seems a tad too geeky
> to have as an actual part of the language.
If anyone wants to understand metaclass code, they're probably going to
need to know what the 'm' in 'mcl' stands for...
> How about
>
> class Bob(Base1, Base2, class Planet):
> ...
>
> i.e. we're saying what we want the class of the
> class to be.
While this is true, calling the class of a class a metaclass provides a
comforting illusion that the infinite 'class of' recursion terminates
neatly. (The fact that 'type(type) is type' can be ignored most of the
time...)
> A benefit would be that the metaclass doesn't
> end up as being one of the keyword args in the
> first place, so there's no issue of whether to
> strip it out or not.
There will already be some special cases here I think - for example, if
I use the signature:
def __prepare__(mcl, name, bases, **kwargs):
#...
def __new__(mcl, name, bases, attrs, **kwargs):
#...
def __init__(cls, name, bases, attrs, **kwargs):
#...
can a user then do:
class Bob(meta=Planet, bases=(A, B, C)): pass
and still get a usable class that inherits from A, B & C?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
