Re: Re: proposal for call_ and str_

"Paul Prescod" <[email protected]> wrote

> What does the syntax look like if I want to use the default str_ and
call_?
>
> object Proto:
>      def str_():        # str_ for instances
>          return "foo"
>
>      def call_():      # call_ for instances
>          return "bar"
>
>      factory:    # not needed
>          pass
>
> Will this generate me an attrProxy.str_ and attrProxy.call_?
>

If you only need instance methods then proxyObject_ is not needed.  Just
leave out the factory keyword.

> Have you considered having some syntax sugar for that case as I expect
> it to be the most common (it is the default in Python). For instance:
>
> factory Proto:
>      def str_():
>          return "foo"
>
>      def call_():
>          return "bar"

No no no.  That would make people think the instance methods were for the
factory.

Don't forget that factory is only needed if you are defining seperate str_
and/or call_ for use in the prototype.

> I always get confused with these proposals about what happens if you do
> this:
>
> object Proto1:
>      factory:
>          def str_(): ...
>          def call_(): ...
>
> object Proto2(Proto1):
>      ...
>
> Does Proto2 inherit the attrProxy?

Good question.  I had not considered this. I think there is a serious
problem with this idea.  As far a Proto1 is concerned Proto2 is an instance.
This is a case where you might need a class.  I will give this some more
thought.  I would hate to have a situation where you have to have a class.

Maybe this is one of those cases that Lenard talked about where prototypes
cannot handle metaclasses. He never got back to me on that claim.