On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:48:10AM -0700, Simon King wrote:
> ...
>
> Our current metaclasses all work by overriding a "magical" method of
> type, or adding a "magical" method to type. Ideally, this should be in
> a customisable way. In some cases, we want to override not just one
> method. Currently, each combination of customised methods requires to
> write a new metaclass. But why not have just *one* metametaclass
> "CustomisationMetaclass", such that
> CustomisationMetaclass("init","get","reduce") returns a metaclass that
> allows customisation of three methods?
An alternative would be to have a single metaclass, subclass of type,
that adds hooks to enable at once all special methods for classes.
Pros:
- It's simple
- It pushes toward eventually having all those hooks directly in type
- It is similar to what happens for objects: all hooks are directly
available; you just implement those that you need.
Inconvenient:
- If a class does not use a hook, does it still pay an overhead for
the handling of this hook? For most hooks, that's irrelevant: if a
class does not use the __classmul__ hook it won't use the syntax A*B
either. But a couple of hooks like __classcall__, __classinit__
could slow basic usage.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
