On 2017-04-26 23:29, Erik wrote:
On 26/04/17 19:15, Mike Miller wrote:
As the new syntax ideas piggyback on existing syntax, it doesn't feel like that its a complete impossibility to have this solved. Could be another "fixed papercut" to drive Py3 adoption. Taken individually not a big deal but they add up.
*sigh* OK, this has occurred to me over the last couple of days but I didn't want to suggest it as I didn't want the discussion to fragment even more.
But, if we're going to bikeshed and there is some weight behind the idea that this "papercut" should be addressed, then given my previous comparisons with importing, what about having 'import' as an operator:
def __init__(self, a, b, c): self import a, b self.foo = c * 100
Also allows renaming:
def __init__(self, a, b, c): self import a, b, c as _c
Because people are conditioned to think the comma-separated values after "import" are not tuples, perhaps the use of import as an operator rides on that wave ...
(I do realise that blurring the lines between statements and operators like this is probably not going to work for technical reasons (and it just doesn't quite read correctly anyway), but now we're bikeshedding and who knows what someone else might come up with in response ...).
If we're going to bikeshed, then: def __init__(self, a, b, c): for self import a, b self.foo = c * 100 and: def __init__(self, a, b, c): for self import a, b, c as _c