On 2018-08-17, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On the other hand, your objection to the following three idioms is as > good an example of the Blurb Paradox as I've ever seen.
Do you mean the Blub Paradox? If so, you're misunderstanding or at least misapplying it. >> * code running directly under the class definition >> * creating a method then changing its name with foo.__name__ >> * poking things into to the class namespace with locals() > > Each of these are standard Python techniques, utterly unexceptional. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. > "Code running directly under the class" describes every use of the class > keyword (except those with an empty body). If you write: > > class Spam: > x = 1 > > you are running code under the class. This is not just a pedantic > technicality, Yes, it absolutely is, in this context. Having code other than assignments and function definitions under the class statement is extremely rare. >> * dynamically adding @abstractmethod methods to a class > > I simply don't get this objection at all. All methods are added > dynamically to classes (that's how Python's execution model works, def is > an executable statement not a declaration). Making them abstract doesn't > change this. > > You might be thinking of the warning in the docs: > > "Dynamically adding abstract methods to a class, [...] > [is] not supported." > > but that is talking about the case where you add the method to the class > after the class is created, from the outside: Yes, I was referring to that. You may well be right about what it means to say, but it's not what it actually says. >> (Not to mention your code means the methods cannot have meaningful >> docstrings.) > > Of course they can, provided they're all identical, give or take some > simple string substitutions. Hence "meaningful". -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
