[Guido van Rossum]
>>> Actually I was attempting to find a solution not just for
>>> properties but for other situations as well. E.g. someone might
>>> want to define capabilities, or event handlers, or ...
[Greg Ewing]
>> But anyway, here's another idea:
>>
>> def foo as property:
>> def __get__(self):
>> ...
>> def __set__(self, x):
>> ...
[Guido van Rossum]
> I don't like things that reuse 'def', unless the existing 'def'
> is a special case and not just an alternative branch in the grammar.
I think Greg's idea ("as" or "is") could satisfy these conditions well
(generic solution, and unadorned "def" as special case).
A standard function definition (simple, unadorned "def") is
equivalent to:
def f as function:
suite
A standard method definition is as above, or if a distinction is
required or useful it could be equivalent to:
def m(self) as method:
suite
This syntax could be used to remove a recent wart, making generators
explicit:
def g as generator:
suite
Of course, it would be a syntax error if the generator suite didn't
contain a "yield" statement.
This syntax has aesthetic appeal. I know nothing about its
implementability. What namespace these new modifier terms would live
in, I also don't know. The syntax proposal reads well and seems like
it could be a good general-purpose solution.
+1
-- David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger
Programmer/sysadmin for hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv
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