On Sep 26, 2011 9:04 AM, "Masklinn" <masklinn@masklinn.net> wrote:
> On 2011-09-26, at 14:26 , Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@...> writes:
>>> i = 88
>>>
>>> def f():
>>> nonlocal i from 17
>>> print(i)
>>> i += 1
>>>
>>> def outer():
>>> i = 17
>>> def f():
>>> nonlocal i
>>> print(i)
>>> i += 1
>>> return f
>>>
>>>>>> f = outer()
>>
>> You had me, you really did. Right up until you showed the current equivalent.
>> This strikes me as a few things.
>>
>> Most importantly, as you noted yourself, a pretty rare case, even in C static
>> variables are probably the rarest scope of variable. This strikes me as a) not
>> saving very much code, it's like crappy HFS instead of real sugar ;), and b)
>> not adding fundamental value, I think both blocks of code are equally readable.
>> Other examples of syntatic sugar, such as decorators, have code motion
>> properties that let you think about code in the places that makes sense, and I
>> don't think this has that.
>>
> An other thing which strikes me as weird is that the proposal is basically the
> creation of private instance attribute on functions. Could you not get the same
> by actually setting an attribute on the function (this can not be used in
> lambdas in any case)?
>
> def f():
> print(f.i)
> f.i += 1
> f.i = 17
>
> and some of the verbosity (but mostly reverse-reading) could be sucrosed-away
> with a decorator:
>
> @setattribute(i=17)
> def f():
> print(f.i)
> f.i += 1
>
> because as far as I can tell, if this can make it there is little justification for
> keeping an explicit `self` (among other things).
>
> This proposal also does not help with the "reverse argument hack" in lambdas, since
> it's using a statement.
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas