On 3/13/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > For uniformity and generality I propose to keep it. So the absolute > > minimal signature for __prepare__ is actually: > > > > def __prepare__(name, bases, *, metaclass=None): ... > > > > this way the prepare function can > > distinguish between an explicit and an implied metaclass. > > Can you envisage any use case for distinguishing those? > Seems to me you should be able to specify the metaclass > either way and not have to worry about it behaving > differently. > > > I think they should go to both > > If they go to both, and the metaclass keyword is left > in both times, then every existing metaclass is going > to need its constructor signature changed to have > a metaclass=None in it. Is that really what you want?
OK, you've convinced me. The metaclass= keyword, if present, should not be passed on to __prepare__ (by whatever name) or to the metaclass constructor itself. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
