Tim Hochberg wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > > Mike Orr wrote: > > > >>>I think this PEP is going off the rails. It's primary virtue was that it > >> > >>was a simpler, clearer way to write: > >> > >> class Foo(args): > >> __metaclass__ = some_metaclass > >> #... > >> > >>And it doesn't even do that. What's wrong with "class Foo: > >>__metaclass__ = blah"? Two lines of code, and the double underscores > >>indicate something special is happening. > > > > > > I think you're missing the point somewhat. The real point isn't to > > make using metaclasses easier; it's to let the useful semantics of the > > class statement be used for things that aren't classes. > > I can see how you might get the impression from the above paragraph, but > you'd be wrong.
??? >From the above post, I got the impression that it was Mike Orr that wrote it, not you. If you and he are really the same person, you must admit I would have no reasonable way to get any other impression. :) No really, are you sure I was replying to what you think I was replying to? I totally agree with you about the XML thing; it'd be a terrible misuse of the make statement. But the post I responded to had nothing to do with that. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
