(original) (raw)

On 5 May 2013 16:17, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:

On 05/04/2013 10:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:

On 05/04/2013 08:50 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:

2\. Instead of directly setting the \_name and \_value of the enum\_item, it lets the Enum class do it via Enum.\_\_init\_\_().

Subclasses can override this. This gives Enums a 2-phase construction just like other classes.

Not sure I care for this. Enums are, at least in theory, immutable objects, and immutable objects don't call \_\_init\_\_.

Okay, still thinking about \`value\`, but as far as \`name\` goes, it should not be passed -- it must be the same as it was in the class definition

Agreed - name should not be passed.

I would have preferred to use \_\_new\_\_, but Enum.\_\_new\_\_ doesn't get called at all from enum\_type (and the implementation wouldn't be at all appropriate anyway).