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

Edward K. Ream edreamleo at charter.net
Fri Aug 6 01:06:12 CEST 2004

> I was using future by way of explanation. I do hope namespaces could > somehow denote annotations. My off-the-cuff suggestion was for > pseudo-modules, so maybe the normal module rules could be sidestepped?

I don't see how this would be possible. The plan is that arbitrary callables can be used as decorations, as long as they take a single argument.

Ok. Consider me dense. But I'm just wanting something that looks like a module reference but isn't really. What it is really is a stand-in for '@'. Wouldn't this allow user-defined annotations, provided the compiler was in on the joke? In essence, what I am asking for is just-another-name-for-at-sign.

So: just-another-name-for-at-sign.arbitrary-callable

Or maybe I should hope for <...> :-)

Edward

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