Attitude about new keywords
Martijn Faassen
m.faassen at vet.uu.nl
Sun Feb 9 17:26:18 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Sun Feb 9 17:26:18 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Attitude about new keywords
- Next message (by thread): Attitude about new keywords
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Rubin <phr-n2003b at nospamnightsong.com> wrote: > In fact I'd say Python could use quite a few new keywords, where it > currently uses __xxx__ variables. People often compare Python's > indentation to Lisp's parentheses as the "initially annoying feature > that you learn to love". But I'd say __ is more in that category. > > Examples: IMO, > > 1. in a class definition, > > class foo(object): > __slots__ = ['name', 'address', 'zip] > > would be better as > > class foo(object): > slots: name, address, zip [snip more examples] I rather like the __foo__ standing out saying "here something special is happening". When you use a __foo__ construction often you're telling the language that it should behave differently from its default behavior. Now it's likely also what one's used to, but I wouldn't want to discount this potential advantage of the '__' to start with. Regards, Martijn -- History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3? No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?
- Previous message (by thread): Attitude about new keywords
- Next message (by thread): Attitude about new keywords
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list