J2 decorator grammar
steven.bethard at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 20:28:39 CEST 2004
Robert Brewer <fumanchu <at> amor.org> writes:
> .author = "François Pinard"
> def foo(cls):
> def bar():
> with bar:
> .version = "0.2.4"
> .name = "New Item"
> thing = Item()
> with thing:
> .color = "red"
The "with" syntax seems pretty reasonable for functions -- probably worth
changing the proposal's:
Should not be a word with a planned future. This rules out "with" and "as".
to something like:
Should not be a word with a planned future of different semantics. This rules
out "as", and perhaps "with" (but see [link to this discussion]).
I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the implicit object of "with" for
anything but defs. "Explicit is better than implicit" being the rule, I don't
see that we gain much by allowing implicit "with" objects for expressions in
general -- the last example above is a little hard for me to read.
However, because funcdefs and classdefs are not expressions, but still might
be reasonable objects of a "with" clause, I can see that a special syntax for
these cases might be merited.
Just my two pfennings...
More information about the Python-list