It's been said, but one more tidbit:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:32 PM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> - the compiler doesn't know what type `a` will have;
> - whether or not it has a `fun` method;
> - whether or not there is a global function `fun`;
> - and whether it takes an argument matching `a`.
>
A large number of topics have come up that wish to make Python more
"fluent" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface). This is an
example of the same general idea. In every single case, the goal has been
almost universally rejected as opposite Python's attitude.
Converting fun(a) to
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 02:23:38PM -, marc...@email.com wrote:
> Is possible some day add Uniform Function Call Syntax (UFCS) in Python like
> Dlang?
>
> Example: https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/gems/uniform-function-call-syntax-ufcs
That converts calls like:
a.fun()
to
fun(a)
I
In theory it could be checked to see if a given function exists in the same
namespace as a given variable if it doesn't exist in it that variable's
object's method resolution order and try calling it using the syntax
described here, but I don't think it affords the language any added
elegance or
