On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:10 AM Ricky Teachey <ri...@teachey.org> wrote:
> \The interpreter wouldn't. I'm talking about adding this knowledge of > signature dependent semantics to `type`. > > To implement this, under the hood `type` would detect the signatures with > different semantics, and choose to wrap the functions with those > signatures in a closure based on the intended semantic meaning. Then > everything proceeds as it does today. > but it would still not know that: t = (1,2,3) something[t] is the same as: something[1,2,3] would it? > All of this is possible today, of course, using a metaclass, or using a > regular class and the __init_subclass__ method, or using decorators. But my > suggestion is to roll it into type. > > --- > Ricky. > > "I've never met a Kentucky man who wasn't either thinking about going home > or actually going home." - Happy Chandler > > > -- Christopher Barker, PhD Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/Q6O4JTEHD2S3P5DBHKEET4E5A2NF6YND/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
