Jim Jewett dixit (2011-09-22, 12:06):

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

...

* I'm sorry but the keyword atdef is ugly. The only proposal I like is static, but I agree that it only makes sense to someone with a C-type background.

Even with a C background, static is a bad choice, because it has already been used for too many different meanings. (Admittedly, not all in C.)

Yeas, we have already staticmethod -- something *completely* different. -1 for `static` name. +1 for `atdef`, IMHO it is not ungly :). Cheers. *j

Jim Jewett dixit (2011-09-22, 12:06):

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

...

* I'm sorry but the keyword atdef is ugly. The only proposal I like is static, but I agree that it only makes sense to someone with a C-type background.

Even with a C background, static is a bad choice, because it has already been used for too many different meanings. (Admittedly, not all in C.)

Yeas, we have already staticmethod -- something *completely* different. -1 for `static` name. +1 for `atdef`, IMHO it is not ungly :). Cheers. *j