[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 03:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I think it's useful to share these recipes, if only to to establish >> whether they have been discovered before, or to decide whether they >> are worthy of a place in the standard library. I didn't find any >> relevant hits on the ASPN Python cookbook. > >>from <somewhere> import <someclass> >> class <newclass>(<someclass>): >> __metaclass__ = monkeypatch_class >> def <method1>(...): ... >> def <method2>(...): ... >> ... > > I've expressed this one before as "class someclass(reopen(someclass)):", > but have thankfully never needed to actually use that in a real program. > It's been a helpful tool in explaining to overzealous Ruby-ists that > "reopenable" classes are not as unique as they think. > > My feelings on monkeypatching is that it *should* feel a little gross > when you have to do it, so the code I've written that does > monkeypatching for real is generally a bit ugly.
Yes, monkeypatching should never be formalized to the point where novices see it as other than a tool of last resort. Otherwise a user base will grow that uses monkeypatching instead of subclassing, for example (shudder). regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
