On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@gmail.com> wrote:
2. namespaces
I hate using a class definition as a plain namespace, but the following is cool (if I'm reading this right):
:some_func(@.x, @.y) class _: x = 4 y = 1
and given a purer namespace (like http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577887):
:some_func(**@) @as_namespace class _: x = 4 y = 1
A clean way to have multiple function could be an issue. Perhaps add a syntax to refer to either the first function (@) or a named function(@x)? I can't think of a great syntax to group the function definitions, though.
1. Leave classes out of it, at least for now. We did that with decorators, and I think it's a reasonable approach to follow.
-1. This sounds useful for classes. I'm not sure what, but it still sounds useful.
2. The initial version should be an alternative to decorator syntax, not an addition to it. That is, you wouldn't be able to mix the first incarnation of a block prefix with ordinary decorators.
That would kill off usage of some handy decorators like functools.wraps: :some_func(@) @wraps(other_func) def f(b): # function body -Aaron DeVore