On Nov 1, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Michael Watkins wrote:
* David Binger wrote on [2007-11-01 11:28:08 -0400]:
def f(x:int, y:list) -> float:
I'm proposing using a similar annotation syntax for annotating the
function name, using a colon and either "xml" or "str" to say that
the function is a template and that it should be compiled using
the "xml" transformation, or the "str" transformation.
Without any thought at all to whether this would be implementable in
Python < 3.x, using Python 3 annotation syntax as a guide. (I say
this not knowing if the new annotation syntax is an all or nothing -
i.e. both parameters and return values - approach or not.)
No problem there. The proposed qpy syntax is a SyntaxError in all
versions of python (except with the qpy compiler).
Python 3:
def f(x:int, y:list) -> float:
Would this make some sense, and is it implementable:
def f(annotated, parameters, or not) -> xml:
def f(annotated, parameters, or not) -> string:
Having just written that, it is perhaps not such a good idea as it
may perpetuate the notion that only the return value is "xml" or
"string".
This would make it impossible to use the annotation to say that
an ordinary, non-template function returns an xml or string.
Also, since it would not be a SyntaxError in py3k, you'd run the
risk of having these compile as non-templates.
As for your proposal:
def f:xml():
def f:str():
I like this better than [EMAIL PROTECTED] if for no other reason than it is
easier to type. I also think it looks cleaner than the
decorator-like syntax.
I think so.
_______________________________________________
QP mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/qp
