On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> >> To be clear, what I specifically proposed (as I mentioned in an earlier
> >> thread) was simply to patch __build_class__ in order to r
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
>> To be clear, what I specifically proposed (as I mentioned in an earlier
>> thread) was simply to patch __build_class__ in order to restore the missing
>> __metaclass__ hook. (Which, incidentall
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> To be clear, what I specifically proposed (as I mentioned in an earlier
> thread) was simply to patch __build_class__ in order to restore the missing
> __metaclass__ hook. (Which, incidentally, would make ALL code using
> __metaclass__ cross-version
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On reflection, I'm actually inclined to agree. The next version of the
>> PEP will propose the addition of type.__decorate__(). This new method
>> will be invoked *after* the class is created
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On reflection, I'm actually inclined to agree. The next version of the
> PEP will propose the addition of type.__decorate__(). This new method
> will be invoked *after* the class is created and the __class__ cell is
> populated, but *before* l
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> On 5 June 2012 09:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>
>> PEP written and posted: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0422/
>> More toy examples here:
>> https://bitbucket.org/ncoghlan/misc/src/default/pep422.py
>>
>> Yes, it means requiring the us
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> IOW, my motivation for saying, "hey, can't I just use this nice hook here"
> was to avoid asking for a *new* feature, if there weren't enough other
> people interested in a decoration protocol of this sort.
>
> That is, I was trying to NOT make anybo
On 5 June 2012 09:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> PEP written and posted: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0422/
> More toy examples here:
> https://bitbucket.org/ncoghlan/misc/src/default/pep422.py
>
> Yes, it means requiring the use of a specific metaclass in 3.2 (either
> directly or via inherit
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Please don't try to coerce everyone else into supporting such an ugly
> hack by abusing an implementation detail.
Whoa, whoa there. Again with the FUD.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm about to unleash the monkeypatching
hordes tomo
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Xavier Morel wrote:
> On 5 juin 2012, at 14:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> Metaclasses *do* have a problem with composition and lexical
>>> decorators don't play nicely with inheritance, but a dynamic decorator
>>> system modelled to some degree on the old __metaclas
On 5 juin 2012, at 14:24, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Michael Foord
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2012, at 08:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
[snip...]
Now, one minor annoyance with current class decora
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Jun 2012, at 08:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>> Now, one minor annoyance with current class decorators is that they're
>>> *not* inherited. This is sometimes w
On 4 June 2012 21:10, PJ Eby wrote:
>> > I only use __metaclass__ in 2.x for this because it's the only way for
>> > code
>> > executed in a class body to gain access to the class at creation time.
>> >
PJ,
it maybe just me, but what does this code do that can't be done at the
metaclass' __new__
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2012, at 08:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> [snip...]
>>
>> Now, one minor annoyance with current class decorators is that they're
>> *not* inherited. This is sometimes what you want, but sometimes you
>> would prefer to automatically
On 5 Jun 2012, at 08:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> [snip...]
>
> Now, one minor annoyance with current class decorators is that they're
> *not* inherited. This is sometimes what you want, but sometimes you
> would prefer to automatically decorate all subclasses as well.
> Currently, that means writi
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
>> > I mean that class-level __metaclass__ is no longer supported as of PEP
>> > 3115,
>> > so I can't use that as a way to non-invasively obtai
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> > I mean that class-level __metaclass__ is no longer supported as of PEP
> 3115,
> > so I can't use that as a way to non-invasively obtain the enclosing
> class at
> > class creation time.
>
> Depe
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:10 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> It
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> I mean that class-level __metaclass__ is no longer supported as of PEP 3115,
> so I can't use that as a way to non-invasively obtain the enclosing class at
> class creation time.
Depends on what you mean by non-invasive:
* http://code.activestate.c
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:10 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's actually the pre-decoration class, since the cell is initialised
>>
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>
> >> It's actually the pre-decoration class, since the cell is initialised
> >> before the class is passed to the first decorator. I a
Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
The reason for wanting this to be transparent is that 1) if you forget the
redundant class-decorator, mixin, or metaclass, stuff will silently not
work,
Why would it silently not work? What's preventing you from having
decorator
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> It's actually the pre-decoration class, since the cell is initialised
>> before the class is passed to the first decorator. I agree it's a little
>> weird, but I did try to describe it accura
23 matches
Mail list logo
