[Python-Dev] Wrappers and keywords (original) (raw)

David LeBlanc whisper@oz.net
Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:03:40 -0700

> _There have been numerous proposals on what the syntactic sugar should_ > _look like, which is one reason why no specific solution has been_ > _implemented yet. Proposals get usually discredit if they require_ > _introduction of new keywords, like "staticdef". The current favorite_ > _proposals is to write_ >> _def x() [static]:_ > _pass_ >> _or perhaps_ >> _def x() [staticmethod]:_ > _pass_ >> _In that proposal, static(method) would *not* be a keyword, but would_ > _be an identifier (denoting the same thing that staticmethod currently_ > _denotes). This syntax nicely extends to_ >> _def x() [threading.synchronized, xmlrpclib.webmethod]:_ > _pass_

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here semantically...?

The syntax has the disadvantage of not applying nicely to slots.

Regards, Martin

It also has the disadvantage of adding a new syntactical construct to the language does it not (which seems like more pain than a couple of keywords)? I don't recall any other place in the language that uses [] as a way to specify a variable (oops, excepting list comprehensions sort of, and that's not quite the same thing IMO), especially in that position in a statement? It seems like it would open the door to uses (abuses?) like: class foo [abstract]: pass (although, this particular one might satisfy the group that wants interfaces in python)

Is there any real difference between what amounts to a reserved constant identifier (with semantic meaning rather than value) compared to a keyword statement sentinal? Are there any other language-level uses like that (reserved constant identifier), or does this introduce something new as well?

Speaking of slots, is their primary purpose to have classes whose instances are not morphable? If so, one might default to all classes being non-morphable by default and having something like: class foo [morphable]: pass as identifying those which are (an obviously python-3000 feature if implemented thusly).

Regards,

Dave LeBlanc Seattle, WA USA