[Python-Dev] Questions about '@' in pep 318
Edward K. Ream
edreamleo at charter.net
Fri Aug 6 01:06:12 CEST 2004
> > I was using __future__ by way of explanation. I do hope namespaces
could
> > somehow denote annotations. My off-the-cuff suggestion was for
> > pseudo-modules, so maybe the normal module rules could be sidestepped?
>
> I don't see how this would be possible. The plan is that arbitrary
> callables can be used as decorations, as long as they take a single
> argument.
Ok. Consider me dense. But I'm just wanting something that _looks_ like a
module reference but isn't really. What it is really is a stand-in for '@'.
Wouldn't this allow user-defined annotations, provided the compiler was in
on the joke? In essence, what I am asking for is
just-another-name-for-at-sign.
So: just-another-name-for-at-sign.arbitrary-callable
Or maybe I should hope for <...> :-)
Edward
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo at charter.net
Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list