Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>> The person whose 'complaints' I was stating says that DSLs (Domain
>>> Specific Languages for those who, like me, were confused about the
>>> acronym) are a big part of what he is after and one per interpreter is
>>> fine by him. He also realises that the application(s) he needs them
>>> for might be unusual. He doesn't specifically need the builtin types
>>> to be extendable. It's just nice to be able to define a single class
>>> in multiple modules. Even C++ allows this to some extent (but not as
>>> much as he'd like).
>> I'm somewhat confused as to how Python's classes aren't open. Sure, types
>> like
>> the builtin types that don't have a __dict__ aren't open because there isn't
>> anywhere to put the extensions, but metaclassing lets you do whatever you
>> want
>> to any other class:
>
> you don't even need metaclass trickery to deal with the "define a single
> class in multiple modules" problem; just use multiple inheritance to bring
> all the component classes together.
I didn't mean to say that I thought what I posted was a sensible thing to do -
I was mainly curious as to how close I could get to Ruby's class extension
syntax by using metaclasses (with the answer being "very", IMO).
If someone really wants to extend a Python class, they can just define a
function that does what they want and assign it to whatever method names on
whatever mutable classes they feel like. No fancy syntax needed :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
