On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> wrote:
> On 25/04/17 22:15, Brice PARENT wrote:
>
>> it may be easier to get something like this
>> (I think, as there is no new operator involved) :
>>
>
> No new operator, but still a syntax change, so that doesn't help from that
> POV.
>
>
>> def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
>> self.* = *args
>> self.** = **kwargs
>>
>
> What is "self.* = *args" supposed to do? For each positional argument,
> what name in the object is it bound to?
>
> E.
For what it's worth, that's what I don't really like about the initially
proposed syntax too ...
self .= foo, bar, baz
works OK, but:
tup = foo, bar, baz
self .= tup
doesn't work. Admittedly, that could be part of the definition of this
feature, but it feels really unexpected to all of a sudden give my tuple a
temporary name and have the code behave in a dramatically different fashion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
--
Matt Gilson | Pattern
Software Engineer
getpattern.com
<https://www.getpattern.com?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-matt>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
