On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:
> On May 09, 2012, at 07:44 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>>(*) Actually, come to think of it, I probably refer to it as
>>"constructing" the class, rather than creating or defining it.
>>It's the type equivalent of constructing an instance, perhaps?
>
> If, as Nick proposes in a different message, it actually does make better
> sense to put this as a module-level function, then putting `class` in the name
> makes sense. types.{new,create,build,construct}_class() works for me, in
> roughly that order.
Yeah, as a result of the discussion in this thread, and considering
the parallel with "imp.new_module()", I'm going to update the tracker
issue to propose the addition of "types.new_class()" as the dynamic
API for the PEP 3115 metaclass protocol.
The question now moves to the implementation strategy - whether we
redirect to the C machinery as originally proposed (either via
__build_class__ or a new _types module) or just reimplement the
algorithm in pure Python. The latter is actually quite an appealing
concept, since it becomes a cross-check on the native C version.
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
