Backtick expressions (now) use the same scoping and same binding rules as other functions. The only difference is that class Class: stacticmethod = `...` staticmethod = lambda: ... def instancemethod = `...` # an instancemethod that's called with self passed in def property = property(`...`) # an instancemethod that's called with self passed in
The only thing that I can think of is that you want `foo + ^bar` to be
another way of writing lambda bar: foo + bar with some under-specified behavior for evaluating foo and different under-specified behavior for evaluating bar .
That is what `lambda bar: foo + ^bar` means.
A caret in a backtick expression indicates that the name after the caret is a parameter. All names with the same name must have a caret before them. Mandatory parameters can be passed in as keyword arguments or as positional ones.
As for the under-specification, I've been working on an example implementation I'll send soon for backtick expressions.
I've also been doing the "look for use cases in stdlib" thing that Johnathan and Steve mentioned.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:02 AM Bruce Leban email@example.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 6:43 PM James Lu firstname.lastname@example.org 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, ...
First, if there is a useful procedure I am strongly against using backticks because (1) it's been used in the past with an entirely different meaning and (2) it looks ugly and is not visually suggestive at all of what it does, especially not the subtle difference between other function definitions.
Second, I don't understand exactly what this difference or why it would be useful. It would help for you to give examples comparing lambda and this variation.
Third, you mention using ^ in "explicit" expressions to refer to parameters of the "created function" and I do not know what function you are referring to or what the exact semantics of this are. Again, a comparison of two expressions with and without that ^ would help. An expression is not a function and not all expressions are written inside functions. (And as to the specific proposed syntax, there already is the ^ xor operator and the most expected meaning of ^value is ~value. just as the unary + and - operators corresponds to the binary operators.
The only thing that I can think of is that you want `foo + ^bar` to be another way of writing lambda bar: foo + bar with some under-specified behavior for evaluating foo and different under-specified behavior for evaluating bar.
Finally, if there is some other useful semantics for references inside a function definition, then I would think the best way to do that is to implement that, not add a new function difference. For example,
lambda foo: foo + $bar
return foo + $foo
where I'm arbitrarily using $ to represent the new semantics whatever they are (no point in bikeshedding syntax when semantics are yet to be defined).