From: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> > Just throwing out some thoughts. > > There are several possible use cases for new customizable syntax: > > - resource allocation (lock.acquire(); try-finally: lock.release()) > > - defining functions with special treatment (e.g. classmethods, properties) > > - defining class-like things (e.g. Zope-style interface declarations) > > Maybe it's possible to invent a new statement that covers all of > these? Certainly a macro system should support doing all these > easily... Mad mad idea, parametric syntax instead of extensible try: this() finally that() can be rewritten has: try[finally=that]: # or some other brackets, maybe with also a pre this or try[this,finally=that] Ok that's thin-ice, but class[f] C(A,B) # maybe not using class? suite equivalent to: C=f((A,B),dictionary-from-execution-of-suite) and so def[f,g] ... etc <wink>. Hopefully we don't have even just internally smalltalk-like anonymous blocks otherwise I would have had more wild ideas about cflow-statement-like constructs that maps to function invocations [*]. All of this is maybe ugly, but has the nice property that things happen only at runtime, also for what I had in mind for [*]. regards.
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