Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Very nice indeed. I'd be more supportive if it was defined as a new
> > statement
> > such as "create" with the syntax:
> >
> > create TYPE NAME(ARGS):
> > BLOCK
>
> I like it, but it would require a new keyword. Alternatively, one
> could abuse 'def':
>
> def TYPE NAME(ARGS):
> BLOCK
>
> but then people would likely be confused as Skip was, earlier in this thread,
> so I guess 'def' is a not an option.
>
> IMHO a new keyword could be justified for such a powerful feature,
> but only Guido's opinion counts on this matters ;)
>
> Anyway I expected people to criticize the proposal as too powerful and
> dangerously close to Lisp macros.
I would criticise it for being dangerously close to worthless. With the
minor support code that I (and others) have offered, no new syntax is
necessary.
You can get the same semantics with...
class NAME(_(TYPE), ARGS):
BLOCK
And a suitably defined _. Remember, not every X line function should be
made a builtin or syntax.
- Josiah
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
