[Python-Dev] PEP 487: Simpler customization of class creation (original) (raw)

Ivan Levkivskyi levkivskyi at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 19:04:24 EDT 2016

I think in any case Type is a bad name, since we now have typing.Type (and it is completely different) I could imagine a lot of confusion.

-- Ivan

On 25 June 2016 at 00:17, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > Honestly though, I'm not sure this additional user-visible complexity > is worth it - "The default type metaclass has this new behaviour" is a > lot easier to document and explain than "We added a new opt-in > alternate metaclass that you can use if you want, and in the next > version that will just become an alias for the builtin types again". > We'd also end up being stuck with types.Type and types.Object as > aliases for the type and object builtins forever (with the associated > "How does 'class name:' or 'class name(object)' differ from 'class > name(types.Object)'?" question and "It doesn't, unless you're using > Python 3.6" answer for folks learning the language for the first > time). > > If we decide initsubclass and setowner are good ideas, let's > just implement them, with a backport available on PyPI for folks that > want to use them on earlier versions, including in Python 2/3 > compatible code.

+1 Could you clarify the value of the staged approach over jumping straight to changing builtins.type? -eric

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/levkivskyi%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160625/4a981f29/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list