On Nov 1, 2007, at 4:28 PM, David Binger wrote:
Currently, templates are denoted by [html] (or [plain]) between the
function name
and the parameter list.
I've proposed (and implemented) an alternative form I call template
decorators,
where "@[xml]" or "@[str]" appears on the line before the def.
I've thought of another possibility that I want to run by you.
In python 3, we can (optionally) annotate parameters and functions
like this:
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.
def f:xml():
or
def f:str():
I think improved grep-friendliness is important, and for that alone I'd
prefer this syntax. I have one reservation though. The py3 proposed
function annotations imply a type -- of a parameter or of the
function's return value. The usage here does not -- it "modulates",
indicates some sort of special behaviour. Maybe a modulator should
precede... would this be too strange:
def xml:f ():
def str:f ():
Note the extra space... that i still prefer the look of for function
defs ;-)
Also, in general my functions end up having a name longer than a single
character, so maybe one should stare also at longer names, such as:
def xml:render_something ():
def str:render_something ():
I certainly prefer this to the template decorator syntax, but i am
anyhow less sure of how this improves on:
def render_something [xml] ():
def render_something [str] ():
Maybe this notation fits best into the python of the future.
I like that it is as grep-able as the current notation, but a little
shorter.
Current... meaning [xml] and [str] syntax?
What do you think?
The compiler doesn't, but... I like it ;-)
_______________________________________________
QP mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/qp
