On 12/3/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:48 PM 12/3/2007 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote: > >Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > Aren't the metaclass changes in PEP 3115 partially aimed at > > > eliminating the need for stack frame hackery to implement > > > these kinds of things?
Yes. > >Couldn't we use a similar approach like the new super() magic? In theory, yes. As it stands, the __class__ object doesn't exist unless there is a super call. This was for efficiency, and more availablility was explicitly rejected. That said, the rejection was for insufficient motivation, so it could change if it needs to. > > Maybe we could introduce a similar way to access the namespace > > of a class during its construction time? > You can already access it with locals(). It's just that without > _getframe, you have to do something like 'implements(locals(), > IExample)'. Not according to http://docs.python.org/lib/built-in-funcs.html """ Warning: The contents of this dictionary should not be modified; changes may not affect the values of local variables used by the interpreter. """ Given that the "correct" mapping can now be passed in as part of construction, I *think* that restriction could be removed for class definition. -jJ _______________________________________________ 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
