On woensdag, jan 29, 2003, at 22:42 Europe/Amsterdam, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> But the problem is that it makes proprty a keyword, which is a Big >>> Change. >> >> The more kludgy workarounds I see proposed here for *not* having a new >> keyword, the more I feel that it would be worth whatever pain it takes >> to add one, to get a decent, clean, magic-free syntax for properties. > > Agreed. It will take longer, but it's The Right Thing. Which is why > I'm shooting down all ugly half-solutions. Can't we do something along the lines of "import as"? I.e. allow either one or two identifiers after a def, and if there's two then the first one changes what happens? Then we could say def property foo: ... Hmm, the __name__'s of various builtin types are not exposed in any namespace, are they? Otherwise we could say that "def foo():" is really a shorthand for "def xxx.function foo():", and maybe even "class Bar:" for "def xxx.classobj Bar:" -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
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