> What you are trying to achieve is to make syntactic sugar for making namespace > definitions look nicer. But: the way you are trying to do so isn't pythonic, > because there isn't one obvious way how your proposal works; you're not even > specifying a proper semantic interpretation of your syntax (and use "magic" > markers, which is even more a NoNo). I used 'magic' markers, since I am lousy at coming up with new keywords....
> > For a better thought out proposal (IMHO) for stacking and defining namespaces > (based on the current metaclass behaviour), look for the PEP on the "make" > keyword (which was sent to Py-Dev some weeks ago). It might be that my proposal the same as the 'make' pep but not so general... But I'll try to formalize it a little bit more. I am proposing two new keywords 'node' and 'attr'. Which have the syntax: node [callable|name][:] This will append itself to the current node if it is a callable. If it is a name it will become the new current node. The current node has the scope of the block or until a new node is created. attr name = expression This will set the attribute name to expression on the current node. I dont think it is the same as the 'make' but I wouldnt rule it out..... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
