Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 435 - reference implementation discussion

Tim Delaney timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com
Sun May 5 13:58:55 CEST 2013 
On 5 May 2013 16:17, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

> On 05/04/2013 10:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2013 08:50 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Instead of directly setting the _name and _value of the enum_item, it
>>> lets the Enum class do it via Enum.__init__().
>>>
>> Subclasses can override this. This gives Enums a 2-phase construction
>>> just like other classes.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure I care for this.  Enums are, at least in theory, immutable
>> objects, and immutable objects don't call __init__.
>>
>
> Okay, still thinking about `value`, but as far as `name` goes, it should
> not be passed -- it must be the same as it was in the class definition
>

Agreed - name should not be passed.

I would have preferred to use __new__, but Enum.__new__ doesn't get called
at all from enum_type (and the implementation wouldn't be at all
appropriate anyway).

Tim Delaney
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130505/7ec48c4e/attachment.html>
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list