[Python-Dev] Type/class

[Guido van Rossum]

>  As I said earlier: the only advantage would be if it could simplify 
> things "under the hood" (compared to metaclasses) but could still 
> provide the same Class semantics (with maybe a "proto" declaration
> sneaking it's nose in under the tent.) 
>  But I have no immediate idea on how to do that, and it sounds like
> you're pretty far along into an implementation already. 

I don't know how to do it either, but I suspect it wouldn't be easy.

>  I guess my practical quesion, which I meant to ask before I got
> myself sidetracked into preaching prototypes is: How much of the
> existing plumbing (specifically the Don Beaudry hack) can I rely
> on in the future for the objective-C/python bridge ? 
>  With BOOST and Zope's extension classes relying on it, can I 
> assume that it's being extended rather than replaced ? 
> ( I guess I ought to take a look at the code! ) 

I'm currently not too concerned with backwards compatibility, and Jim
Fulton has proclaimed that he would prefer to get rid of
ExtensionClassess (since what I'm building goes way beyond them!), so
I'm not sure I can be motivated to support just for BOOST's sake.
There will be a replacement mechanism that will be at least as
powerful, and I'm sure that BOOST etc. can be rewritten to use the new
mechanism easily.  That's what we're planning for Zope.

> Guido: did you ever imagine back at that first workshop at NIST
> that you and Python would be where you are today ? 

No way!  I knew I was on to something, but I had no idea onto what...
I'll always hold on to the T-shirt you made.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)