<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barry@python.org" target="_blank">barry@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On May 09, 2012, at 05:20 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
<br>
>Ah, good point. In that case, consider me convinced: static method it<br>
>is. It can join mro() as the second non-underscore method defined on<br>
>type().<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<br>
If I may dip into the bikeshed paint once more. I think it would be useful to<br>
establish a naming convention for alternative constructors implemented as<br>
{static,class}methods. I don't like `build_class()` much. Would you be<br>
opposed to `type.new()`?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Depends on how far you want this new term to go since "new" is somewhat overloaded thanks to __new__(). I personally like create(). </div></div>