John Lenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think __new__ being an > exception to this is a (minor) wart, in fact it feels like premature > optimization (how many __new__s do you write, that you can't stick a > @staticmethod in front of them?
I personally think it's quite reasonable for Python's infrastructure to consider each special name specially -- that's what the double underscores before and after are FOR, after all. Since __new__ MUST be a staticmethod, and there's no use case for it ever being otherwise, it seems quite sensible for the default metaclass to MAKE it a staticmethod (and otherwise treat it specially, as it needs to be). I don't see what optimization has to do with it (quite apart from the fact that __new__ was introduced before the splatsyntax for decorators, so that rather than sticking anything in front the alternative would have been to demand serious boilerplate, a '__new__ = staticmethod(__new__)' after every definition of such a method). Reducing boilerplate with no ill effects whatsoever seems quite a worthy goal to me, when reachable. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
