On 5 June 2012 09:24, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > PEP written and posted: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0422/ > More toy examples here: > https://bitbucket.org/ncoghlan/misc/src/default/pep422.py > > Yes, it means requiring the use of a specific metaclass in 3.2 (either > directly or via inheritance), but monkeypatching an undocumented > builtin is going to pathological lengths just to avoid requiring that > people explicitly interoperate with your particular metaclass > mechanisms.
When reading the PEP, I got the impression that having a "__decorate__" method on "type", which would perform its thing, would be not add magic exceptions, would be more explicit and more flexible than having an extra step to be called between the metaclass execution and decorator applying. So, I think that settling for having the decorators applied - as described in the PEP - in a __decorate__ method of the metaclass would be nicer and cleaner. js -><- > > Regards, > 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/jsbueno%40python.org.br _______________________________________________ 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
