[Python-Dev] Re: Plea for function/method syntax sugar (PEP 318, with a different syntax)

[Paul Moore]

Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> writes:

> Some time ago, mwh developed a patch that adds some syntactical sugar
> to def, which is equivalent to PEP 318 though it has a different and
> more flexible syntax...

[...]

> I'm willing to help however I can in order to get this into Python 2.4.

I like Michael's patch (or rather the functionality/syntax it offers),
but I'd have to admit that it's for purely theoretical "that's nice"
reasons - I don't have any use cases to add to yours.

I'm not entirely sure why acceptance got stalled the way it did. While
I don't recall wholehearted enthusiasm, nor do I recall any other
proposal getting significant support. My impression was that it ended
up left hanging "because there might be something better that we're
missing". The fact that nothing else has been proposed since argues
either that no-one is interested enough, or that there isn't likely to
be a better option found. Either way, it's probably time to reopen the
issue and decide one way or the other.

As well as the question of whether anyone is interested, there was
also a question as to whether it is useful enough to justify the
language change. Your use cases may address these issues to an extent.

Finally, there was an issue with the fact that the syntax didn't
handle properties, but personally, I don't see that as a major issue -
properties are just so different (combining 3 separate functions) that
I wouldn't expect the same syntax to help in both cases.

I'd like to see this resolved one way or another, and I'm also willing
to help - but I'm not sure what needs doing next.

Paul.
-- 
This signature intentionally left blank