[Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation
levkivskyi at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 19:04:24 EDT 2016
I think in any case Type is a bad name, since we now have typing.Type (and
it is completely different) I could imagine a lot of confusion.
On 25 June 2016 at 00:17, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Honestly though, I'm not sure this additional user-visible complexity
> > is worth it - "The default type metaclass has this new behaviour" is a
> > lot easier to document and explain than "We added a new opt-in
> > alternate metaclass that you can use if you want, and in the next
> > version that will just become an alias for the builtin types again".
> > We'd also end up being stuck with types.Type and types.Object as
> > aliases for the type and object builtins forever (with the associated
> > "How does 'class name:' or 'class name(object)' differ from 'class
> > name(types.Object)'?" question and "It doesn't, unless you're using
> > Python 3.6" answer for folks learning the language for the first
> > time).
> > If we decide __init_subclass__ and __set_owner__ are good ideas, let's
> > just implement them, with a backport available on PyPI for folks that
> > want to use them on earlier versions, including in Python 2/3
> > compatible code.
> Could you clarify the value of the staged approach over jumping
> straight to changing builtins.type?
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev