On Sat, Feb 01, 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I received this from Glyph. He brings up some interesting use cases > for thunks. I guess it could be used for "on" style event handler > declarations. Hmm, you could even craft your own case statement with > his suggestion: > > switch(expr): > case(val1): > block1 > case(val2): > block2 > default: > block3 > > This actually makes me worry -- I didn't plan thunks to be the answer > to all problems. A new idea that could cause a paradigm landslide is > not necessarily right. That's why I made my lambda joke earlier, and why I've been pushing for thunk types at the syntactic level. I think we do need a generalizable thunk from the POV of the Python internals, but I don't think we should expose that mechanism to the language itself, except through specific keywords or pseudo-keywords. Using "as" with pseudo-keywords gives the best of all worlds, I think, and allowing the [] notation to operate on a thunk gives a fair amount of flexibility without permitting baroque syntactic forms. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours." --Richard Bach
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