Collin Winter schrieb: > I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor. > The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's > nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony > Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will think > it's a syntax error, allusions to MATLAB and assembly indirection > syntax not withstanding. > > Ignoring the syntax, I'm -1 on the 2-argument form, especially since > it can only be used in an expression context; getattr() can be kept > around for this. > > I'm +0 on the idea, -1 on the means.
-1 here too. I fear that this gets too indistinguishable from normal calling syntax, leading to confusion. (Of course, one could propose other syntax, such as obj->(attr) or whatnot, but I doubt an ideal and Pythonic syntax can be found here...) To me, dynamic attribute access is something "special", and it justifies a different way of doing it, namely getattr and setattr. For the speed argument -- there were quite a few proposals to take builtins as constants under certain conditions, in which case getattr() usage could be optimized just as well as new syntax. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
