On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Finally, could you remind me how the proposed type.define differs from > builtins.__build_class__? > I can't see any difference (apart from parameter ordering and the extra name > parameter in builtins.__build_class__).
It's the officially supported version of that API - the current version is solely a CPython implementation detail. The main change is moving exec_body to the end and making it optional, thus bringing the interface more in line with calling a metaclass directly. The name parameter is actually still there, I just forgot to include in the examples in the thread. You'll find there's no mention of __build_class__ in the language or library references, thus there's currently no official way to programmatically define a new type in a way that complies with PEP 3115. (This is explained in the tracker issue and the previous thread that proposed the name operator.build_class) I prefer type.define(), but if the descriptor protocol does cause problems (and making static methods callable doesn't fix them), then we'll move it somewhere else (probably types.define() with a new _types module). 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
