what should we use instead of the 'new' module?
Robert Kern
robert.kern at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 23:13:54 EST 2008
flrump at gmail.com wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Appreciate your response.
>
> However Guido says here that types was never intended to be used like
> that:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/msg58023
>
> quote: "The types module was only ever intended for type
> checking, not for creating new instances.
>
> The correct solution will be to use whatever we end up deciding about
> pyvm. Certainly the types module will go."
>
> So that does not seem like a very long term solution to me?
Hmm. Interesting. Anyways, if adding a method to a class is the only use case
you care about, you can just add the function itself. You don't have to make a
method object from it.
In [14]: A.foo = foo
In [16]: a = A()
In [17]: a.foo('See?')
See?
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Python-list
mailing list