[Python-Dev] Adding types.build_class for 3.3

[Greg Ewing]

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Greg Ewing
> <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
>>Something should
>>only go in a class namespace if it somehow relates to
>>that particular class, and other classes could might
>>implement it differently. That's not the case with
>>build_class().
> 
> Not true - you *will* get a type instance out of any sane call to
> type.define().

You must have misunderstood me, because this doesn't
relate to the point I was making at all.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't see the justification
for making build_class() a static method rather than a
plain module-level function.

To my way of thinking, static methods are very rarely
justified in Python. The only argument so far in this
case seems to be "we can't make up our minds where else
to put it", which is rather lame.

A stronger argument would be if there were cases where
you wanted to define a subclass of type that implemented
build_class differently. But how would it get called, if
everyone who uses build_class invokes it using
'type.build_class()'?

-- 
Greg