Thanks for the suggestion. I would prefer to avoid that just because it's a potential misuse of classes, and I suspect may lead to confusion for other developers. Otherwise that's exactly what I want to do.
On 17 September 2014 15:27, Ali Alkhatib firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
This may be a misuse of classes, but why can't you make a class and then not instantiate it?
class signin: def handle(): return "this works" signin.handle() # returns "this works"
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Tennessee Leeuwenburg < email@example.com> wrote:
I would like to be able to use named sections to organise my code, much an inline submodules, bit without using classes or functions to organise them. I would use this if I had a group of related functions which were not written in an object-oriented-style, possibly due to not needing any shared state. Rather than break these out into a new file, I would like to just be able to use internal structure to declare the relationship. I've used the keyword 'block' to indicate the start of a named block.
block signin: def handle_new_user(): do_it()
def handle_existing_user(): do_it()
while True: try: signin.handle_existing_user(): except: signin.handle_new_user()
At the moment, I would have to either break out into more files, or somewhat clumsily co-opt things like functions or staticmethods. I think that supporting named blocks or inline module declarations would really help me organise some of my code much better. It could also provide a more seamless way to decide to break out into a new file. Once a named block got big enough, I could easily create a new file and import those functions into the same namespace.
I hope this makes sense and that I'm not overlooking anything obvious.
Python-ideas mailing list Pythonfirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- Ali Alkhatib Department of Computer Science PhD Student - Stanford University