PEP 359: The "make" Statement

[Carl Banks]

Tim Hochberg wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
> > Mike Orr wrote:
> >
> >>>I think this PEP is going off the rails. It's primary virtue was that it
> >>
> >>was a simpler, clearer way to write:
> >>
> >>     class Foo(args):
> >>        __metaclass__ = some_metaclass
> >>        #...
> >>
> >>And it doesn't even do that.  What's wrong with "class Foo:
> >>__metaclass__ = blah"?  Two lines of code, and the double underscores
> >>indicate something special is happening.
> >
> >
> > I think you're missing the point somewhat.  The real point isn't to
> > make using metaclasses easier; it's to let the useful semantics of the
> > class statement be used for things that aren't classes.
>
> I can see how you might get the impression from the above paragraph, but
> you'd be wrong.

???

>From the above post, I got the impression that it was Mike Orr that
wrote it, not you.  If you and he are really the same person, you must
admit I would have no reasonable way to get any other impression. :)

No really, are you sure I was replying to what you think I was replying
to?  I totally agree with you about the XML thing; it'd be a terrible
misuse of the make statement.  But the post I responded to had nothing
to do with that.


Carl Banks