any interest in type-scoped static constants?
paulp at ActiveState.com
Sun Mar 11 20:29:42 CET 2001
Paul Miller wrote:
> If I create an extension type for Point, I can't do this:
> p = Point.ZERO
> But I'd like to.
Yes you can!
[out of order]
> My solution would be to add a dictionary to the extension type for
> constants, that the extension code can initialize, and then add a
> scoping test for Type.ATTR to add a check in the Type's attribute
Right, you can do this in any extension type.
> I'm seriously considering working on a patch to add type-specific
> constants to provide OO access to extension type constants, rather than
> putting all constants in the module scope. I wonder if anyone has
> started this, and if this is considered a good idea. Do I need to write
> a PEP?
Why do you need a PEP when you can implement it for any extension you
need. Just put a dictionary in the type and using type.getattr to look
stuff up in your dictionary.
Programming the way
- (originated with Skip Montanaro?)
More information about the Python-list