Peter Otten wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You define one base type with a custom metaclass and inherit from that. Your > example then becomes: > > import sys > > class ExposedType( type ): > def __init__( cls, *args, **kw ): > # Track marked exposed methods > cls.s_exposedMethods = [] > for superclass in cls.__mro__: > for name, meth in superclass.__dict__.items(): > if hasattr( meth, "exposed" ): > cls.s_exposedMethods.append( name ) > > class Exposed: > __metaclass__ = ExposedType > def getExposedMethods(self): > return self.s_exposedMethods > def bar(self): > print "bar\n" > @staticmethod > def expose( f ): > f.exposed = True > return f > > class Process( Exposed): > @Exposed.expose > def foo( self ): > pass > def bar( self ): > print "BAR" > > > class BotProcess( Process ): > @Exposed.expose > def addBots( self ): > pass > > p = Process() > p.bar() > > This prints "BAR" as expected. > > Peter
Thanks Peter. Yeah I had thought of that earlier, but wasn't sure if this is a standard design pattern for what I'm trying to achieve. It seems ugly to me to use 2 classes when you are essentially describing a single type. Is the Splat/SplatType pairing really a common design pattern when trying to use metaclasses in this way? Also ... as for the 'inspect' based solution, yeah I can see that would work, but it seems very hacky to me and my gut reaction is to avoid that kind of thing ... Cheers, Glen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
