On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:06 AM Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:
I think a metaclass [well, "pseudo-metaclass", to use a term I made up for a metaclass that is not a subclass of type and/or does not return an instance of type] would be better in this case because the resulting object should not be a type.
but a class decorator can return, well, anything. See the example I posted having it create a module object. I really don't know that that's a good idea, but yeah, if what you want is a essentially a namespace, then you really don't want a type. Maybe just an instance of object would work though. -CHB
The reason I wanted different syntax was because I wanted to change how the functions inside are compiled [to allow nonlocal accesses to refer to the namespace's scope], though I think making them globals and a custom dict subclass [possibly ChainMap, haven't checked if it does everything I want] for globals makes this workable as a metaclass or decorator - either one can take all of the functions and replace them with a new function with different globals and the original function's code object.
namespace Foo: x=1 def bar(): pass def baz() return bar() + x
That could be done with a function and a function decorator. "Proof left as an exercise for the reader." :-)
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2HWZUS... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- Christopher Barker, PhD Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython