Origin of the term "first-class object"
bokr at oz.net
Tue Nov 25 21:28:09 CET 2003
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:07:22 +1300, "Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de)" <g2h5dqi002 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Jp Calderone wrote:
>> Up for a new operator?
>> l[index] ()= f
>I like it! :-)
Me too ;-)
But I wonder if =()= wouldn't read more clearly, e.g.,
l[index] =()= f
and see below.
>I suppose you should be able to put extra args in, too, e.g.
> l[index] (foo, 42)= f
I presume that would imply that f had all optional args after the first.
What if you wanted to pass the update target in another position? E.g.,
l[index] =(foo, ??, 42)= f
where ?? is some kind of indicator for where to plug in the arg. I guess you
could use packing/unpacking if you had a tuple left side and several ??'s to match, e.g.,
a, l[index] =(foo, ??, 42, ??)= f
a, l[index] = f(foo, a, 42, l[index])
or course the targets could be simple as well
a, b =(foo, ??, ??, 42)= f
a, b = f(foo, a, b, 42)
Hm, I wonder about * for pack/unpack into arg tuple in this context
a, b =(foo, *??, 42)= f
a, b = f(foo, (a,b), 42)
or did I get that backwards?
Sorry, can't help it ;-)
More information about the Python-list