"Jewett, Jim J" <jim.jewett at eds.com> writes: > Bob Ippolito: > >> Also note that the patch also adds the same sugar to classes, > > Michael Hudson: > >> FWIW, I'm rather less convinced this is useful. > > On the other hand, it seems arbitrary to say that you can do > this with one type of definition, but not another. Well, this is the argument that got me to add it to the patch; so this is the argument that I'm not so sure of. However, if Phillip et al. do have uses for class wrappers, then I'm happier with the idea. When I said "less convinced this is useful" that's actually precisely what I meant! > Phillip J. Eby: > >> class Foo(object) [instancesProvide(IFoo)]: > > [is more useful for] > >> class Foo(object): >> protocols.advise(instancesProvide=[IFoo]) > > > I think this may be one reason this didn't happen before; > wrapping is good, but it isn't entirely obvious how to > write it or exactly what it should mean. Given that, it > might be premature to use up the [] syntax. I'm not sure what you mean here. BTW, class C [decorator]: pass *HAS* to mean class C: pass C = decorator(C) and not be "another way to spell __metaclass__", because otherwise having more than one decorator becomes a nonsense. This applies less to the 'as' syntax (which I don't like as much for as-far-as-I-can-tell irrational reasons) so much, but that should still mean the same thing. > This might be a good use of macros ... but I have a feeling they > won't appear quickly. You don't say! <wink> Cheers, mwh -- The Internet is full. Go away. -- http://www.disobey.com/devilshat/ds011101.htm
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