Carl Banks wrote: > 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.
My bad. I had a stack overflow or something when reading the nesting of the post and missed who was replying to what. Sorry, -tim -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
