On Aug 10, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote: > > "Michael Urman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 8/9/06, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The question doesn't make sense: in Python, you assign to a name, >>> an attribute or a subscript, and that's it. >> >> Just to play devil's advocate here, why not to a function call via a >> new __setcall__? I'm not saying there's the use case to justify it, >> but I don't see anything that makes it a clear abomination or >> impossible with python's syntax. > > Describe the syntax and semantics. Every time I try to work them > out, I > end up with a construct that makes less than no sense, to be used in > cases I have never seen. Further, if you want to call a method > __setcall__ on an object just created, you can use 'x().__setcall__ > (y)'. > There is no reason to muck up Python's syntax.
It makes just as much sense as assigning to an array access, and the semantics would be pretty similar. There's similarly "no reason" to allow x[5] = True. You can just spell that x.__setitem__(5, True). x(*args, **kwargs) = val could translate into x.__setcall__(val, *args, **kwargs). x(5) = True could translate into x.__setcall__(True, 5) Please note I'm actually arguing for this proposal. Just agreeing that it is not a completely nonsensical idea. James _______________________________________________ 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
