any interest in type-scoped static constants?

[Paul Prescod]

Paul Miller wrote:
> 
> ....
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but do you not need an *object* of the type
> before you can call getattr on it?
> 
> In other words, I would have to do this:
> 
>         constant_value = Point().CONSTANT_VALUE

Python type objects are not, in general, constructors. 

>>> types.FloatType()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: call of non-function (type type)

Typically modules expose a function (unrelated to the type object) and
the function is the constructor. If you want, though, you could make an
object that was callable and also had a getattr.

It does seem sometimes that the constructor and the type object should
be formally related somehow (as they are for classes) but usually they
are not. I would be interested in a PEP that added *both*
getattr/setattr behavior AND callable-behavior to type objects so that
they were more like class objects.

Fixing this sort of stuff typically falls under the heading "mending the
type/class dichotomy."

http://www.google.com/search?q=class+type+dichotomy

-- 
Python:
    Programming the way
    Guido
    indented it.
       - (originated with Skip Montanaro?)