On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 06:19:35PM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> Dear Craig, David, Mike, Robert:
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:01:47AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> > I'll also give it a shot at the getattr alternative implementation
> > (as we had discussed), so that you can focus on reviewing.
>
> Done for the second one: see categories-getattr_hack-nt.patch that
> I'll upload tonight to the sage-combinat patch server.
>
> IMHO, this is much hackier than inheriting dynamically from the
> element or parent_class of the category. I am really not a fan of
> using it, except when there are no other choices yet (extension
> types). So it's up to you to make it rock solid and optimized!
I forgot to mention: the trick of setting __getattr__ in
Sets().element_class (resp. Sets().parent_class) to avoid the double
lookup does not work, because they are after Parent (resp. Element) in
the mro.
So we have to test in Parent.__getattr__ that the class of the object
does not derive from Sets().parent_class (typically by testing that
the class is not a dynamic class, which I do now). Or maybe we want
to make sure that Sets().parent_class inherits from Parent (and idem
for elements)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
