On 4/11/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You had said there was some question of what kind of objects the type > markers should be. I couldn't (and still can't) see any good reason > for them to be anything but a way to ensure [to some level] that the > argument is [in some way] appropriate.
You just can't avoid using a double negative can't you? :-) I'd like to stretch the definition further, so that *any* argument metadata can be placed in that syntactic position, as long as a decorator is used that can interpret the metadata, and as long as the metadata can be expressed as a single expression. (If the expression gets too long we can always lift it out and move it to a preceding position in the file, as the expression is evaluated at the same time the function definition and the default values are -- I probably forgot to make that explicit.) Just like decorators have no defined semantics (beyond "the decorator gets called this way and what it returns gets assigned to that variable") but have found a few well-defined conventions for their most common usage (call wrappers and registration), I expect that we'll develop a convention for how to express various useful metadata soon enough -- but I don't want the language to enforce that. The syntactic position is much too precious to assign it a single specific meaning. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
