On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:31:35 +0200 Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 07:48, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
Oh, I'll also note that the class variant gives you the full power of PEP 3150 without any (especially) funky new namespace semantics:
:x = property(@.get, @.set, @.delete) class scope: def get(self): return __class__.attr def set(self, val): __class__.attr = val def delete(self): del __class__.attr
Sorry, I don't think this looks like Python anymore. Defining a class just to get at a throwaway namespace? Using "@" as an identifier? Using ":" not as a suite marker?
This doesn't have any way for a casual reader to understand what's going on.
Same here. This is very cryptic to me. (while e.g. Javascript anonymous functions are quite easy to read)
The update to the PEP that I just pushed actually drops class statement support altogether (at least for now), but if it was still there, the above example would instead look more like: postdef x = property(class.get, class.set, class.delete) class scope: def get(self): return __class__.attr def set(self, val): __class__.attr = val def delete(self): del __class__.attr I think I was getting too cute and it's a bad example, though - there's a reason I've now dropped classes from the initial scope of the proposal (just like the original decorator PEP). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia