Jeremy Banks wrote:
Thanks for your comments.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52, Gary Herron <gher...@islandtraining.com> wrote:
[...]
There's no need for a specific addition to the syntax to do this.
Try this:
def foo_bar():
return(...)
foo.bar = foo_bar
[...]
and this:
def foo_bar():
return(...)
foo["bar"] = foo_bar
I understand that this is possible now, but I just don't see why it's
necessary to do it at all.
In this case I could see there being a problem in that there's nothing
to get the function's __name__ from, but that doesn't apply for the
first example.
Not sure what you mean here.
>>> def foo(): pass
...
>>> bar = foo
>>> bar.__name__
'foo'
>>>
If I defined foo.bar it would know that the method name was "bar", but
if I defined foo["bar"] there's be no clear identifier to use for the
function's name. I don't see this as a great problem, since anonymous
functions already exist, but I thought it was worth acknowledging.
To be clear, I don't see this as a serious fault in the language, but
as an unnecessary restriction that makes code a little less direct
than it could be.
Things like your suggestion are called "syntactic-sugar" -- syntax that
adds a convenience, but *no* new functionality. Python has plenty of
"syntactic-sugar"s, and more will be added in the future. To make an
argument for such an addition, one would have to describe some
compelling (and general) use cases in a well-argued PEP. You're welcome
to try, but be forewarned, most PEP's (especially syntax changing PEPs)
don't fly far.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
