On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Eric Snow wrote: >> >> I've felt for a long time that it would be helpful in some situations >> to have a reverse descriptor protocol. > > Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Sure. It's more python-ideas territory (I posted about it a few years back). The idea is to allow an object the opportunity to handle being bound to a name. So if a type defines __bound__ (or similar) then it will be called for the instance being bound to a name: type(obj).__bound__(obj, name). There would also be an __unbound__, but that is less of an issue here. I'm still not convinced such a reverse descriptor protocol is practical as a general approach (though no less than the current descriptor protocol). However, I do see a distinct correspondence with the "__post_process__" method being considered here. So I wanted to point out the possibility of a more general approach for the sake of its impact on the name and semantics of a descriptor post-process method. While I expect __post_process__ would be called at a different place than __bound__, the responsibility of both would still be identical. -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
