Michael Chermside wrote: > In other words, rather than hearing what we'd like to be able to DO > with blocks, I'd like to hear what we want to PROHIBIT DOING with > blocks. I think this might be a fruitful way of thinking about the > problem which might make it easier to evaluate syntax suggestions. And > if the answer is that we want to prohibit nothing, then the right > solution is macros.
One thing we don't need, I believe, is arbitrary transformation of code objects. That's actually already possible, thanks to Python's compiler module, although the method isn't clean yet. Zope uses the compiler module to sandbox partially-trusted Python code. For example, it redirects all print statements and replaces operations that change an attribute with a call to a function that checks access before setting the attribute. Also, we don't need any of these macros, AFAICT: http://gauss.gwydiondylan.org/books/drm/drm_86.html Shane _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
