On 6/22/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:54 PM 6/22/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >Summarizing our disagreement, I think you feel that > >freeze-on-first-use is most easily explained and understood while I > >feel that freeze-at-def-time is more robust. I'm not sure how to get > >past this point except by stating that you haven't convinced me... I > >think it's time to sit back and wait for someone else to weigh in with > >a new argument. > > Which I think you and Fredrik have found, if "case" implies "static". It > also looks attractive as an addition in its own right, independent of > "switch". > > In any case, my point wasn't to convince you but to make you aware of > certain costs and benefits that I wasn't sure you'd perceived. It's clear > from your response that you *have* perceived them now, so I'm quite > satisfied by that outcome -- i.e., my goal wasn't to "convince" you to > adopt a particular proposal, but rather to make sure you understood and > considered the ramifications of the ones under discussion. > > That being said, there isn't anything to "get past"; from my POV, the > discussion is already a success. :)
That sounds like a good solution all around. I hope that others can also find themselves in this. (1) An expression of the form 'static' <atom> has the semantics of evaluating the atom at the same time as the nearest surrounding function definition. If there is no surrounding function definition, 'static' is a no-op and the expression is evaluated every time. [Alternative 1: this is an error] [Alternative 2: it is evaluated before the module is entered; this would imply it can not involve any imported names but it can involve builtins] [Alternative 3: precomputed the first time the switch is entered] (2) All case expressions in a switch have an implied 'static'. (3) A switch is implemented using a dict which is precomputed at the same time its static expressions are precomputed. The switch expression must be hashable. Overlap between different cases will raise an exception at precomputation time. Independent from this, I wonder if we also need static names of the form static <name> = <expression> which would be similar to <name> = static (<expression>) but also prevents <name> from being assigned to elsewhere in the same scope. Also, I haven't heard a lot of thumbs up or down on the idea of using case X: to indicate a single value and case in S: to indicate a sequence of values. (I'm not counting all the hypergeneralizations that were proposed like case == X: case < X: case is X: case isinstance X: since I'm -1 on all those, no matter how nicely they align. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
