On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> What do you think about deprecating
> abstractproperty, or removing it from the documentation?
Unless anyone specifically howls at the idea, +1 to both (since
abstractproperty doesn't actually achieve the intended purpose and
will become redund
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> for base in bases:
>>> for name in getattr(base, "__abstractmethods__", ()):
>>> # CHANGE 4: Using rpartition better tolerates weird
>>> naming in the metacl
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> That should be "get_abstract_names(namespace)", since ns.items() gets
> called again in the for loop. I think the get_abstract_names function
> isn't needed though, since it is only ever called that one time. Any
> reason not replace the above b
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> [snip excellent analysis of the problem]
>
> I have some suggestions regarding a few details of your current code,
> but your basic proposal looks sound to me.
>
> I would tweak __new__ alo
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
[snip excellent analysis of the problem]
I have some suggestions regarding a few details of your current code,
but your basic proposal looks sound to me.
I would tweak __new__ along the following lines though:
def __new__(mcls, name, bases,
I would like to try to address some shortfalls with the way python deals with
abstract base classes containing descriptors. I originally was just concerned
with improving support for defining abstract properties with the decorator
syntax and converting between abstract and concrete properties, but
