Message309064
On Dec 25, 2017, at 18:51, Nick Coghlan <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> 3. A for-subclasses-only "self._clone()" API could work as follows:
>
> def _clone(self, new_instance=None):
> if new_instance is None:
> new_instance = type(self)()
> # Clone state here
> return new_instance
>
> Then subclasses could override *just* the instance creation part by doing:
>
> def _clone(self):
> return super()._clone(self._make_instance())
>
> While also being free to add their own additional state copying code if needed.
So _make_instance() wouldn’t be part of ExitStack’s API, but subclasses could implement it (and name it whatever they want of course)?
I’m not sure _clone() is the right name here since that implies to me state copy as well, and I totally agree with your other points. That’s why I originally suggested _make_instance() would be the name and API in the base class. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-12-26 16:58:39 | barry | set | recipients:
+ barry, ncoghlan, docs@python, Denaun |
2017-12-26 16:58:39 | barry | link | issue32145 messages |
2017-12-26 16:58:39 | barry | create | |
|