On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Daniel Urban <urban.dani...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 13:48, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> /me pages thoughts from 12 months ago back into brain... > > Sorry about that, I planned to do this earlier...
No worries - good to have someone following up on it, since it had completely dropped off my own radar :) >> No, I think we would want to expose the created namespace directly - >> that way people can use update(), direct assigment, exec(), eval(), or >> whatever other mechanism they choose to handle the task of populating >> the namespace. However, a potentially cleaner way to do that might be >> offer use an optional callback API rather than exposing a separate >> public prepare() function. Something like: >> >> def build_class(name, bases=(), kwds=None, eval_body=None): >> metaclass, ns = _prepare(name, bases, kwds) >> if eval_body is not None: >> eval_body(ns) >> return metaclass(name, bases, ns) > > That seems more flexible indeed. I will try to make a patch next week, > if that's OK. Sure, just create a new tracker issue and assign it to me. You already know better than most what the _prepare() step needs to do :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
