why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?
Anton Muhin
antonmuhin at sendmail.ru
Sun Feb 9 08:49:22 EST 2003
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Within the proposals of extending the function syntax,
> reported on the python-dev summary recently posted on c.l.p.,
> I like the most the proposal with "is", as for instance in
>
> def double(x) is staticmethod:
> return 2*x
>
> I like the "is" syntax more than the syntax with "as" and the syntax
> with the square brackets, especially because with "is" it would be
> natural to extend the notation for classes, using metaclasses as class
> descriptors. Metaclasses are typically denoted by adjectives and thus,
> instead of writing, for instance
>
> class C(B):
> __metaclass__=Traced
> #assuming Traced is a metaclass adding tracing capabilities
>
> one could write
>
> class C(B) is Traced:
> #This is much more readable
>
> I am curious to know if this has already been proposed. Just my $0.02
> on the way of avoiding too many underscores ;-)
>
>
> Michele
Just my 0.002$ --- why not 'of': class C(B) of <metaclass> or
def foo(x) of staticmethod (etc.)?
Anton.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list