On 2/8/13 2:05 PM, Robert wrote:
Look at the section "No module-level properties". Why not?! That's a
perfectly valid use of properties. The proposal disallows module-level
properties, but instead allows:
42.fun = 43;
which reads like: assign 43 to the fun property of 42. We get this
really obscure feature but disallowing module-level properties? If that
is not wrong, than I don't know what is.
There would be ambiguities with module level properties. A property with
one argument may be either a setter for a module-level property or a
getter for the property of a module-level object.
Andrei
