[Python-Dev] Adding types.build_class for 3.3 (original) (raw)

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Thu May 10 19:31:56 CEST 2012

On May 09, 2012, at 07:44 PM, R. David Murray wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:55 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

Given that the statement form is referred to as a "class definition", and this is the dynamic equivalent, I'm inclined to go with "type.define()". Dynamic type definition is more consistent with existing terminology than dynamic type creation. Yeah, but that's the statement form. I think of the characters in the .py file as the definition. If I'm creating a class dynamically...I'm creating(*) it, not defining it.

That's exactly how I think about it too.

I don't think it's a big deal, though. Either word will work.

--David (*) Actually, come to think of it, I probably refer to it as "constructing" the class, rather than creating or defining it. It's the type equivalent of constructing an instance, perhaps?

If, as Nick proposes in a different message, it actually does make better sense to put this as a module-level function, then putting class in the name makes sense. types.{new,create,build,construct}_class() works for me, in roughly that order.

-Barry

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list