Collin Winter schrieb: > I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor. > The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's > nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony > Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will think > it's a syntax error, allusions to MATLAB and assembly indirection > syntax not withstanding. > > Ignoring the syntax, I'm -1 on the 2-argument form, especially since > it can only be used in an expression context; getattr() can be kept > around for this. > > I'm +0 on the idea, -1 on the means. -1 here too. I fear that this gets too indistinguishable from normal calling syntax, leading to confusion. (Of course, one could propose other syntax, such as obj->(attr) or whatnot, but I doubt an ideal and Pythonic syntax can be found here...) To me, dynamic attribute access is something "special", and it justifies a different way of doing it, namely getattr and setattr. For the speed argument -- there were quite a few proposals to take builtins as constants under certain conditions, in which case getattr() usage could be optimized just as well as new syntax. Georg
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