On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 07:21:50PM -0500, James Lu wrote:
Backtick expressions work exactly like lambdas, except that they are bound to the instance they are created in every time that class is used to create one. To illustrate, this “percent” property is bound to the instance, not to the class. class Example: percent = property(`self.v*self.v2/100`)
Sorry, that example is not clear to me. What does it do? There is no instance "self" to bind to at this point.
And a few more examples for clarity.
def example(): locals()['a'] = 1 expr = `a+1` return expr() # error: one variable is required
Still not clear to me. It might help if you showed expected input and output, rather than expecting us to guess.
Any variable names that exist when the backtick expression is created are bound to the expression,
I don't know what you mean by binding a name to an expression.
and the reference to the expression is stored within the expression.
So it forms a reference loop? The expression stores a reference to itself? Why?
Names that do not exist when the expresssion is created must be passed in as parameters.
That's different behaviour from regular functions, where names are only resolved when the function is called.
Such names can also be passed in as keyword arguments. Backtick expressions are created when their scope is created.
Created when their scope is created? So not when the line containing the expression is executed?
Variable names that are declared but have not been assigned to will be considered to exist for the purposes of the backtick expression.
Python doesn't have variable declarations, so I don't know what this means.
Directly calling a backtick expression as soon as it’s created is forbidden:
But this is technically allowed but discouraged, like how := works: (`v+1`)(a)
How is that different? You're still directly calling the expression.
I propose syntax highlighters show a backtick expression on a different background color, a lighter shade of black for a dark theme; dirty white for a light thing.
Nothing to do with us, or you for that matter. Editors are free to use whatever syntax highlighting they like, including none at all, and to allow users to customise that highlighting.
It disturbs me that you believe you get to tell everyone what syntax highlighting they should use for this feature. That's pretty dictatorial, and not in a good BDFL way.