From: "Samuele Pedroni" <pedronis@bluewin.ch> > - I think that there should be a *distinguashable* syntax for introducing/using > thunks with inline-suite scoping vs. 'class'-like scoping. I'm very very very > uncomfortable with the idea of variable-geometry scoping, that means that I > would have to go read some hairy code defining 'foo' in order to know: > > def f(): > x=3 > foo: > x=2 > > whether the second x= is modifying the local x to f, or is just local to foo > suite. So syntax-wise I personally would go for: do iterate(lst): (x): print x introducing a new-keyword 'do' (or something similar) and that would imply inline-suite-like scoping. And [KEYW-TO-ESTABLISH-OR-NOTHING] property foo: ... [KEYW-TO-ESTABLISH-OR-NOTHING] interface.interface I(J,K): ... implying 'class'-like scoping and not allowing the thunk maybe to take arguments or have break/continue/return(/value) in it. regards
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