BAW> Functions and methods are first class objects, and they already
BAW> have attributes, some of which are writable.
SM> I haven't actually got anything against adding attributes to
SM> functions (or numbers, if it's appropriate). Just wondering out
SM> loud and playing a bit of a devil's advocate.
BAW> Python 1.6a2 (#26, Apr 12 2000, 13:53:57) [GCC 2.8.1] on sunos5
BAW> Copyright 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam
>>>> i = 3.1416
>>>> dir(i)
BAW> []
BAW> Floats don't currently have attributes.
True enough, but why can't they? I see no reason that your writable
function attributes proposal requires that functions already have
attributes. Modifying my example, how about:
>>> l = [1,2,3]
>>> l.__type__ = "int"
Like functions, lists do have (readonly) attributes. Why not allow them to
have writable attributes as well?
Awhile ago, Paul Prescod proposed something I think he called a super tuple,
which allowed you to address tuple elements using attribute names:
>>> t = ("x": 1, "y": 2, "z": 3)
>>> print t.x
1
>>> print t[1]
2
(or something like that). I'm sure Paul or others will chime in if they
think it's relevant.
Your observation was that functions have a __doc__ attribute that is being
abused in multiple, conflicting ways because it's the only function
attribute people have to play with. I have absolutely no quibble with that.
See:
http://www.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/1999-December/001671.html
(Note that it apparently fell on completely deaf ears... ;-) I like your
proposal. I was just wondering out loud if it should be more general.
Skip
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