In any case I find this PEP great. If we can implement a library like
traitlets only using these new hooks without a custom metaclass, it will be
a big improvement.
My only concern was that calling the hook __set_name__ was misleading while
it could not set the name at all and do pretty much anyth
Whoa. That's not how I read it.
--Guido (mobile)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
On 21 July 2016 at 03:40, Sylvain Corlay wrote:
> My point is that in any real-world implementation of traits, __set_name__
> will do a lot more than setting the name, which makes the name misleading.
I suspect the point of disagreement on that front may be in how we
view the names of the existin
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your reply. I understand your argument about using protocol
method names that are
very specific to a particular intended use case.
Interestingly, the one example that is provided in the PEP is that of a
"trait" which is pretty much the same as traitlets. (traitlets started
Hi Sylvain,
Thanks for getting in touch! The traitlets library sounds interesting,
and provides good additional evidence that this is a capability that
folks are interested in having available.
On 20 July 2016 at 15:26, Sylvain Corlay wrote:
> My understanding is that the proposed __set_name__ i
