[Python-ideas] Fwd: Define a method or function attribute outside of a class with the dot operator

[Markus Meskanen]

>
> That saves one line, at the cost of introducing even more complexity to
> the language.
>
> Are these use-cases common enough to justify the extra syntax?
>

Keep in mind that the extra syntax is *very* minor, and goes hand-to-hand
with the existing attribute access syntax. Basically it's taking the
existing syntax to one more place, where it in my opinion should have been
since long ago.


> What advantage does this proposed syntax have?
>
> Since that's not actually a rhetorical question, I'll answer it myself:
>
> def Spam.method(self) not only saves the line
>
>     Spam.method = method
>
> but it also avoids leaving a global name "method" in the namespace (no
> need to follow with `del method`); it makes it explicit from the
> beginning that the function is an attribute of Spam.
>

Yeah this is a major reason why I want this, and the reason I mentioned
"unnatural order" in the original mail. Having the class's name in the
beginning just makes it feel right..


> If the implementation is clever enough, it can avoid clashing with a
> global of the same name:
>
> eggs = "something"
>
> def Spam.eggs(self):
>     ...
>
> def Cheese.eggs(self):
>     ...
>
> assert eggs == "something"
>
>
> So the idea isn't without merit; but the question in my mind is whether
> the advantages outweigh the extra complexity.


I didn't even realize you would avoid the global namespace issue too, this
makes me fall in love with the idea even more. I really think the added
complexity isn't much. One thing to consider, however, is what would happen
if someone attempted to use this in a class definition:

class Foo:
    ...

class Bar:
    def Foo.meth(self):
        ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20170210/feb7a3c0/attachment.html>