On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Ivan Levkivskyi <email@example.com> wrote:
> If an object that is not a class object appears in the bases of a class
> definition, the ``__subclass_base__`` is searched on it. If found,
> it is called with the original tuple of bases as an argument. If the result
> of the call is not ``None``, then it is substituted instead of this object.
> Otherwise (if the result is ``None``), the base is just removed. This is
> necessary to avoid inconsistent MRO errors, that are currently prevented by
> manipulations in ``GenericMeta.__new__``. After creating the class,
> the original bases are saved in ``__orig_bases__`` (currently this is also
> done by the metaclass).
How would you feel about calling it "__mro_entry__", as a mnemonic for
"the substitute entry to use instead of this object when calculating a
I think the other thing that needs to be clarified is whether or not
the actual metaclass can expect to receive an already-resolved
sequence of MRO entries as its list of bases, or if it will need to
repeat the base resolution process executed while figuring out the