On 9 May 2013 11:29, Piotr Duda <duda.piotr@gmail.com> wrote:
To solve these problems I propose to add simple syntax that assigns these attributes to arbitrary object: def name = expression other possible forms may be: def name from expression class name = expression class name from expression name := expression # new operator
which would be equivalent for: _tmp = expression _tmp.__name__ = 'name' _tmp.__qualname__ = ... # corresponding qualname _tmp.__module__ = __name__ # apply decorators if present name = _tmp
Just for clarification, if you used this syntax with an expression which returned an object which *didn't* allow attributes to be set, I assume it would simply fail at runtime with an AttributeError? For example, def x = 12 This isn't a point against the syntax, I just think it's worth being explicit that this is what would happen. Overall, I'm somewhat indifferent. The use case seems fairly specialised to me, and yet the syntax "def name = value" seems like it's worth reserving for something a bit more generally useful. Maybe the def name=value syntax should implement a protocol, that objects like enum and namedtuple subclasses can hook into (in the same way that the context manager and iterator protocols work, or indeed the whole class definition mechanism). Paul