In article <c1k9fm$hrf$1 at sea.gmane.org>, Pete Shinners <pete at shinners.org> wrote: > I'm not too concerned about the syntax. All current proposals weigh about > equal to me. Although I don't believe "as" makes documentation lookup much > easier. > > I think this feature will be another one of those positive changes that > effects the entire way python is used. The kind of thing like iterators, > string methods, etc. I've been playing with the idea for awhile and can > throw out some extra use cases. > > Some of these may even be bad ideas apon further thought, but it's something > to ponder. > > > def main() [__main__]: > """specify a function to be run if __name__=='__main__'. this > would need some other python tricks to actually work.""" > > def cleanup() [sys.atexit]: > """ensures this function is called when program quits.""" >... This looks like too much magic to me -- a recipe for making tricky and hard-to-read code. I would rather focus on the heart of PEP 318 and try to make class and static methods easier to declare, e.g. something like: def classmethod foo(self, ...): If one supports arbitrary modifier functions and lists of modifier functions I think readability is really going to suffer. I'm usually in favor of generality, but reading the examples above and others presented in this thread really makes me shudder. -- Russell
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