On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, at 23:13, Guido van Rossum wrote: > A. New syntax is way too high a bar for a questionable feature. Classes > full of static or class methods were a pattern at my last employer and > it was unpleasant to work with. (Others at the company agreed but it > was too late to change.) > > B. At some point we realized that metaclasses have too much power over > subclasses (action at a distance) and we switched to recommending class > decorators. Another problem with metaclasses is that it's a pain to > combine two different metaclasses.
I think a metaclass [well, "pseudo-metaclass", to use a term I made up for a metaclass that is not a subclass of type and/or does not return an instance of type] would be better in this case because the resulting object should not be a type. The reason I wanted different syntax was because I wanted to change how the functions inside are compiled [to allow nonlocal accesses to refer to the namespace's scope], though I think making them globals and a custom dict subclass [possibly ChainMap, haven't checked if it does everything I want] for globals makes this workable as a metaclass or decorator - either one can take all of the functions and replace them with a new function with different globals and the original function's code object. > > namespace Foo: > > x=1 > > def bar(): > > pass > > def baz() > > return bar() + x > > That could be done with a function and a function decorator. "Proof > left as an exercise for the reader." :-) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2HWZUS6G33TRBN7NINH4FJB4ROSGDLLY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
