> > I was using __future__ by way of explanation. I do hope namespaces could > > somehow denote annotations. My off-the-cuff suggestion was for > > pseudo-modules, so maybe the normal module rules could be sidestepped? > > I don't see how this would be possible. The plan is that arbitrary > callables can be used as decorations, as long as they take a single > argument. Ok. Consider me dense. But I'm just wanting something that _looks_ like a module reference but isn't really. What it is really is a stand-in for '@'. Wouldn't this allow user-defined annotations, provided the compiler was in on the joke? In essence, what I am asking for is just-another-name-for-at-sign. So: just-another-name-for-at-sign.arbitrary-callable Or maybe I should hope for <...> :-) Edward -------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo at charter.net Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html --------------------------------------------------------------------
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