From: "Jack Jansen" <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> > 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:" function have formal parameters which are not a tuple of values computed at definition time like superclasses for a class, so it seems that both shorthand cannot be made work at the same time. reusing 'def' is a possibility for the KEYW-TO-BE in my post, but it's clear-cut that's the least confusing choice. Unless we go for a generalization of 'def' (function) instead of 'class' but it would make def property more odd because property would likely have to receive a code object instead of a populated dict.
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