[Python-Dev] Questions about '@' in pep 318 (original) (raw)

Edward K. Ream edreamleo at charter.net
Thu Aug 5 23:34:52 CEST 2004

> annotate.accepts(int, (int,float))

I don't understand. How are you changing/annotating the function?

I'm glad you asked. My suggestion was that the compiler turn

annotate.accepts(int, (int,float))

into exactly what it would have turned

@accepts(int, (int,float))

into.

I hope I am not being incredibly stupid, but I am thinking only of syntax here. So wherever the community would have decided to put:

@accepts <>

the new "syntax" would be:

annotate.accepts <>

Do you see? The annotate "module" probably doesn't exist at all. I think of it as a pseudo-module. That's why I wrote "from future import annotation as annotate" in the original post.

My thinking is this: apparently people like the @ syntax. Why not do some magic and compile module references to the annotation pseudo-module just as it is presently proposed to compile the @ syntax. That way we don't change the apparent syntax at all, we use the annotation namespace to denote what is happening, and we use annotate.x exactly as we would have used @x.

Again, my thinking is that this would be completely independent of the other choices about where to use @. Wherever the consensus is, then use the annotation pseudo-module there.

Have I made myself clear?

Edward

P.S. I wrote:

from future import annotation as annotate

as a hint that one could write:

from future import annotation as a

if brevity is important. Then we would write a.accepts instead of @accepts.

EKR

Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo at charter.net Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list