For those suggesting the operator module is actually a good choice, there's no way to add this function without making major changes to the module description (go read it - I only realised the problem when I went to add the docs). It's a bad fit (*much* worse than types or a class method)
-- Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :) On May 8, 2012 9:01 AM, "Greg Ewing" <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Instead, I'm now thinking we should add a _types C extension module >> and expose the new function as types.build_class(). I don't want to >> add an entire new module just for this feature, and the types module >> seems like an appropriate home for it. >> > > Dunno. Currently the only thing the types module contains is > types. A function would seem a bit out of place there. > > I don't think there's too much wrong with putting it in the > operators module -- it's a function doing something that is > otherwise expressed by special syntax. > > -- > Greg > ______________________________**_________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-dev<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev> > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/**mailman/options/python-dev/** > ncoghlan%40gmail.com<http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.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
