Syntax modification idea: (classmethods, properties locking...)

Kevin Smith Kevin.Smith at sas.com
Fri Jan 17 15:45:27 CET 2003


This matter was brought up when classmethod/staticmethods were first 
introduced (coincidentally, by me).  My favorite solution at the time (I 
don't remember who introduced it) was:

   def classmethod foo(...):
   def staticmethod bar(...):

Under the covers, this could do the same thing as 'foo = classmethod(foo)
', but would also allow people to write their own modifiers.  Chaining 
them could look like:

   def classmethod protected foo(...):

and would effectively do 'foo = classmethod(protected(foo))'.  I really 
hope this gets more attention because I find the current method of 
creating static and class methods so distasteful that I usually try to 
avoid them.


In <fuk70b.il3.ln at beastie.ix.netcom.com> Dennis Lee Bieber  wrote:
> Arne Koewing fed this fish to the penguins on Thursday 16 January 2003 
> 01:03 pm:
> 
>> 
>> why not extending the def statement?
>> 
>> class bar(object):
>>     def foo(class,arg1) is classmethod:
>>         pass
>>     def bar(arg1) is staticmethod:
>> pass
> 
>         I think I'd prefer just modifying the def keyword...
> 
>         defclass ...
>         defstatic ...
> 
> with plain def retaining the effect it has at present.
> 
>         "is" already has meaning in the language when doing compares -- 
> I'd  rather not overload it as a noise verb "def ... [is] classmethod:
> "  wouldn't change if one left out the "is".
>
-- 
Kevin Smith
Kevin.Smith at sas.com




More information about the Python-list mailing list