why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
Michele Simionato
mis6 at pitt.edu
Fri Feb 7 11:10:21 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Feb 7 11:10:21 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
- Next message (by thread): why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Within the proposals of extending the function syntax,
reported on the python-dev summary recently posted on c.l.p.,
I like the most the proposal with "is", as for instance in
def double(x) is staticmethod:
return 2*x
I like the "is" syntax more than the syntax with "as" and the syntax
with the square brackets, especially because with "is" it would be
natural to extend the notation for classes, using metaclasses as class
descriptors. Metaclasses are typically denoted by adjectives and thus,
instead of writing, for instance
class C(B):
__metaclass__=Traced
#assuming Traced is a metaclass adding tracing capabilities
one could write
class C(B) is Traced:
#This is much more readable
I am curious to know if this has already been proposed. Just my $0.02
on the way of avoiding too many underscores ;-)
Michele
- Previous message (by thread): why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
- Next message (by thread): why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list