On 5/18/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a question to the audience. How do you represent higher order > functions using this syntax?
I think Collin and I both (independently) proposed the pragmatic Function(<type>, <type>, ..., returns=<type>) for this. We also discussed forward references; my proposal was that "lambda:A" would be equivalent to "A" but usable as a forward reference. > Another question: is there any intention to > support ML style quards for pattern matching on algebraic /recursive types? Can you rephrase that without references to ML or quads? > I'm still not sure I like this whole idea in the Python context ( I'm > less concerned with syntax scrabbling but the semantics ) but anyway I'm > curious how it evolves. Fair enough. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
