On 5 May 2013 21:58, Tim Delaney <timothy.c.dela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 May 2013 16:17, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > >> On 05/04/2013 10:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> >>> On 05/04/2013 08:50 PM, Tim Delaney wrote: >>> >>>> 2. Instead of directly setting the _name and _value of the enum_item, >>>> it lets the Enum class do it via Enum.__init__(). >>>> >>> Subclasses can override this. This gives Enums a 2-phase construction >>>> just like other classes. >>>> >>> >>> Not sure I care for this. Enums are, at least in theory, immutable >>> objects, and immutable objects don't call __init__. >>> >> >> Okay, still thinking about `value`, but as far as `name` goes, it should >> not be passed -- it must be the same as it was in the class definition >> > > Agreed - name should not be passed. > > I would have preferred to use __new__, but Enum.__new__ doesn't get called > at all from enum_type (and the implementation wouldn't be at all > appropriate anyway). > *If* I can manage to convince Guido and Eli over in that other (initial values) thread, I think it's still probably worthwhile calling __init__ on the enum instance, but with no parameters. That would allow more behaviour-based enums to set up any other initial state they require. Tim Delaney
_______________________________________________ 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
