On Dec 19, 1:59 am, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 11:33 pm, Evan Driscoll <edrisc...@wisc.edu> wrote: > > > On 12/17/2011 22:52, buck wrote:> Try these on for size. > > > > head, @tuple tail = sequence > > > def foo(@list args, @dict kwargs): pass > > > foo(@args, @kwargs) > > > > For backward compatibility, we could say that the unary * is identical to > > > @list and unary ** is identical to @dict. > > > I like this idea much more than the original one. > > +1. I will second that! Eelco has the CORRECT idea, but the WRONG > syntax!
Thanks, your opinion is noted. Personally im impartial between identifier::collectiontype and identifier@collectiontype, but that order is something I think is rather important. Having two seperate symbols seperated by whitespace, as in @list args strikes me as a terrible break of normal python lexical rules. Plus, identifier@collectiontype as a collection-type annotation would be consistent with the existing general function annotation syntax. Many non-C-family languages postfix the type declaration. Also, we want to use the same symbol for collection unpacking as we use for collection packing. Saying foo(@argslist) really does look a tad much like a decorator, even though it can be unambigiously distinguished from it by context. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
