PEP318: radical notion
arien_malec at yahoo.com.REMOVE
Mon Aug 23 20:12:57 CEST 2004
Apologies for feeding the fire, when we are rallying around a consensus,
but I've been concerned about the clash between syntax and semantics, and
I've finally reached a mini-epiphany:
The problem with PEP318 is that it is too powerful, and tries to do too
much. It is a sledgehammer for attacking three problems:
1) Metadata, a la Java and C#
2) class & static method defs
3) Arbitrary post-definitional transformations of functions.
(where 2 is a special frequent use case that's part of 3).
We have ueber-powerful semantics (implementing 3), trying to solve
problems with very different semantics (e.g., 1).
OK, that's what I know. Here's a proprosal, that may or may not work,
because my knowledge of metaclass programming is only sketchy:
1) Make PEP318 *only* implement problem (1). That is, create sematics for
defining and retrieving function/method/class metadata
2) Create a new default metaclass that uses metadata for class/static
method definitions to perform the necessary class/staticmethod
transformations. Perhaps use this metaclass as default in 2.4 only via a
"from __future__ import foo".
3) Leave any arbitrary transformations to be implemented via custom
metaclasses -- these metaclasses will have access to the custom metadata
to trigger method def transformations.
More information about the Python-list