Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: Based on the python-dev thread [1], the proposed name for this API is now "types.new_class()".
This parallels the existing imp.new_module() naming scheme and avoids various problems with the idea of using a static method on type itself (descriptors on type behave strangely, and the type namespace is accessible through *all* type objects, which would be weird in this case). Since types is a Python module, we now have to choose between 3 implementation strategies: - reimplement in pure Python (my preferred choice) - implement in terms of __build_class__ (would work, but may not be portable to other implementations and/or serves as a de facto promotion of __build_class__ up to being part of the language specification) - move Daniel's existing operator module based solution over to a new _types C extension module (again, may not help other implementations) The reason I find the idea of a pure Python reimplementation appealing is that it can then serve as a cross-check for any other implementations implementing PEP 3115 for their class statements. [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-May/119318.html ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14588> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
