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

[Michael Hudson]

Paul Moore <pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> 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.

[...]

> Finally, there was an issue with the fact that the syntax didn't
> handle properties, 

I think this was roughly why discussion stalled -- there was a VAST
thread on all kinds of syntactical extensions (some of which, in
hindsight, look pretty silly), so much so that the initial proposal
got lost in the noise.  Please, let's not do this again :-)

> 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.

Yeah, my patch fails to deal with a case it wasn't ever intended to.
Big deal.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  nonono,  while we're making wild  conjectures about the behavior
  of completely irrelevant tasks, we must not also make serious
  mistakes, or the data might suddenly become statistically valid.
                                        -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp