PEP 359: The "make" Statement

[Tim Hochberg]

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