[Python-Dev] PEP 435 - requesting pronouncement

Tim Delaney timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com
Sun May 5 03:22:01 CEST 2013

On 5 May 2013 10:49, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Typo line 171: <Colro.blue: 3>
> Fixed, thanks.
>> One thing I'd like to be clear in the PEP about is whether enum_type and
>> _EnumDict._enum_names should be documented, or whether they're considered
>> implementation details.
> No, they should not. Not only are they implementation details, they are
> details of the *reference implementation*, not the actual stdlib module.
> The reference implementation will naturally serve as a basis for the stdlib
> module, but it still has to undergo a review in which implementation
> details can change. Note that usually we do not document implementation
> details of stdlib modules, but this doesn't prevent some people from using
> them if they really want to.

I think it would be useful to have some guaranteed method for a
sub-metaclass to get the list of enum keys before calling the base class
__new__. Not being able to do so removes a large number of possible
extensions (like auto-numbering).

> In testing the below, I've also discovered a bug in the reference
>> implementation - currently it will not handle an __mro__ like:
> Thanks! Tim - did you sign the contributor CLA for Python? Since the
> reference implementation is aimed for becoming the stdlib enum eventually,
> we'd probably need you to sign that before we can accept patches from you.

I have now (just waiting on the confirmation email). Haven't submitted a
patch since the CLAs were started ...

Tim Delaney
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130505/05daadc4/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list