[Python-Dev] Definining properties - a use case for class decorators? (original) (raw)

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Mon Oct 24 10:19:23 CEST 2005

Michele Simionato <michele.simionato at gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/23/05, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > Very nice indeed. I'd be more supportive if it was defined as a new statement > such as "create" with the syntax: > > create TYPE NAME(ARGS): > BLOCK I like it, but it would require a new keyword. Alternatively, one could abuse 'def': def TYPE NAME(ARGS): BLOCK but then people would likely be confused as Skip was, earlier in this thread, so I guess 'def' is a not an option. IMHO a new keyword could be justified for such a powerful feature, but only Guido's opinion counts on this matters ;) Anyway I expected people to criticize the proposal as too powerful and dangerously close to Lisp macros.

I would criticise it for being dangerously close to worthless. With the minor support code that I (and others) have offered, no new syntax is necessary.

You can get the same semantics with...

class NAME(_(TYPE), ARGS): BLOCK

And a suitably defined _. Remember, not every X line function should be made a builtin or syntax.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list