Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'd like to see this fall under the blanket "Python will not have > programmable syntax" rule in PEO 3099.
Why? I understand your general position, but categorically rejecting anything smelling of metasyntax seems ill-conceived to me. Python already has just enough programmable bits in place to invite abuse which emulates programmable syntax; look at SQLObject or SQLalchemy for examples. And the former is a very high-profile module. This is akin to Zope's incredibly messy 'implements' hack (walk up the stack, inject a factory metaclass which does base class resolution on the fly), which is completely obviated by the introduction of class decorators. Class decorators are not a feature that many of us consider obviously-needed or beautiful, but the code that's out there demonstrates a need for it. The same is the case with (explicit!) AST literals of some kind. -- Ivan Krstic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 0x147C722D _______________________________________________ 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
