Michael Hudson mwh at python.net
Mon Feb 10 07:27:30 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 ]

---

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes:

> Anton Muhin wrote:
> 
> > Just my 0.002$ --- why not 'of': class C(B) of <metaclass> or
> > def foo(x) of staticmethod (etc.)?
> 
> Well, that's a new keyword ...

This would be easy enough to do as a 'pretend' keyword like as is at
the moment.  Still don't like the idea, mind.

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  The potential of having part of my car's drive-train functioning
  as a pr0n server is both intellectually fascinating and 
  metaphysically disturbing.                             -- Steed, asr

---

• 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