On Sep 15, 1:54 am, Ryan Kelly <r...@rfk.id.au> wrote: > The above will do exactly what you want, but it's generally bad style > unless you have a very specific use-case. Is there a particular reason > you need to "magically" return a subclass, rather than making this > explicit in the code? > > To be friendlier to others reading your code, I would consider using a > classmethod to create an alternative constructor:
Yeah, I was considering doing this as well, particularly if I couldn't have made the other work. The reason I'm not too concerned about anyone misinterpreting what's going on is that in this case the base class is actually named for being a constructor, and any rare case where I want a specific subclass the subclass will be created directly. Thanks very much for your help! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
