From: "Moore, Paul" <Paul.Moore@atosorigin.com>
>From: Samuele Pedroni [mailto:pedronis@bluewin.ch]
>> the first candidate would be a generalization of 'class'
>> (although that make it redundant with 'class' and meta-classes)
>> so that
>>
>> KEYW-TO-BE kind name [ '(' expr,... ')' ] [ maybe [] extended syntax ]:
>> suite
>>
>> would be equivalent to
>>
>> name = kind(name-as-string,(expr,...),dict-populated-executing-suite)
>
>[fixed up to exclude the docstring, as per the followup message]
an alternative (if parseable, I have not fully thought about that) would be to
leave out the KEYW-TO-BE and try to parse directly
kind name [ '(' expr,... ')' ] [ maybe [] extended syntax ]:
where kind could be any general expr or better only a qualified name that are
NOT keywords, so we would possible have:
property foo:
<suite>
interface.interface I(J,K):
<suite>
all working as specified like 'class' and with its scope rules.
Control flow statements would still have to be added to the language one by one
(I find that ok and pythonic). Also because specifying and implementing
implicit thunk with proper scoping and non-local return etc does not (to me)
seem worth the complication.
About extending or generalizing function 'def' beyond [] extended syntax, I
don't see a compelling case.
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