[Skip laments...] > Could this be extended to many/most/all current instances of > keywords in Python? As Tim pointed out, Fortran has no > keywords. It annoys me that I (for example) can't define > a method named "print". Sometimes it is worse than annoying! In the COM and CORBA worlds, it can be a showstopper - if an external object happens to expose a method or property named after a Python keyword, then you simply can not use it! This has lead to COM support having to check _every_ attribute name it sees externally, and mangle it if a keyword. A bigger support exists for .NET. The .NET framework explicitly dictates that a compliant language _must_ have a way of overriding its own keywords when calling external methods (it was either that, or try and dictate a union of reserved words they can ban) Eg, C# allows you to surround a keyword with brackets. ie, I believe something like: object.[if] Would work in C# to provide access to an attribute named "if" Unfortunately, Python COM is a layer ontop of CPython, and Python .NET still uses the CPython parser - so in neither of these cases is there a simple hack I can use to work around it at the parser level. Needless to say, as this affects the 2 major technologies I work with currently, I would like an official way to work around Python keywords! Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4