On Jan 30, 2008 9:00 PM, Kevin Teague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 on having established Python idioms for these techniques. > > While I don't know if there has ever been a formal definition of > monkey patch, the term monkey patch came from guerilla patch, which > came from two or more dynamic modifications to a class interfering > with each other. These modifications were usually made by extension > code (Zope add-on Products) to upstream code (the Zope framework), so > I would define a monkey patch only as dynamic modifications made to a > class with the *intent to change or correct behaviour in upstream code*. > > The term has also caught on with the a second definition of referring > to any dynamic modification of class, regardless of intent though.
Check out the wikipedia entry too. > I would perhaps call these methods something like: > > * add_method_to_class > > * extend_class I don't like extend because in Java that's how you define a subclass. > This gives you a better idea of what they do, rather than use a term > with a somewhat ambigous definition. With monkeypatch_method under the > definition of "altering existing upstream behviour", I might expect it > to raise an error if the method I was replacing on a class did not > exist (e.g. upstream code was refactored so my patch no longer applied). Funny, several examples mentioned earlier in this thread actually check that the method *doesn't* already exist... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
