On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Paul, I'd like to see what you think of my alternate proposal that
> does away with the keyword altogether.
>
> > By the way, can I just say that I am +1 on Michael Hudson's original
> > patch for [...] on definitions. Even though it doesn't solve the
> > issue of properties, I think it's a nice solution for classmethod
> > and staticmethod, and again I like the generality.
>
> I hope that everyone involved in this discussion understands that none
> of this goes into Python 2.3. We've promised syntactic stability, and
> that's what people will get.
I hope it will never go into Python at all. Most suggestions
reminded me of... LaTeX. Some others are hidden way to introduce
properties into Python syntax like they are in Java or C++. [grrr!]
It works now, so why add fancities?
def f(x):
...
f.prop1 = val1
...
f.propN = valN
For mass-production:
def a:
...
def b:
...
def c:
...
for o in a,b,c:
o.prop1 = val1
o.prop2 = val2
o.prop3 = val3
(I am sorry I have not closely followed every message of this discussion,
so maybe be I missed some good proposals.)
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Sincerely yours, Roman A.Suzi
--
- Petrozavodsk - Karelia - Russia - mailto:rnd@onego.ru -
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