On 11/26/06, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A.b evaluates to the value of attribute 'b' of some object bound to > name 'A', of course. > A::b (or whatever syntax might be used) would evaluate to some value > that actually represents "The attribute 'b' of this object". This > "attribute object" (poor term, yes) could have other uses, but thats > not completely relevent now. For the case at hand, basically we would > allow the syntax for these objects to be used as legal names (keys in > the __dict__ or elements of the __slots__). Thus, the way in > `A.__len__` the string '__len__' is created and looked up in the > dictionary, with `A.operator::len` (or whatever syntax is used) > <ObjectAttribute operator module, attribute 'len'> would be the key in > the __dict__, the actual name of the attribute of the A class. > > Basically, it allows for using any object in combination with a name > to have identifiers that do not conflict. Thus we can have all the > operator methods we want and never conflict with names others might > use. The interface libraries can operate without worry. Lots of > problems solved. > > I am sorry if my thoughts are not conveyed as clear as they sound in my mind.
No worry. It is now completely clear. The idea is interesting and it's a useful one to have handy, even without a concrete syntax proposal. Thanks for hanging in there! -- --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
