Andrey Tatarinov wrote:
> It would be great to be able to reverse usage/definition parts
> in haskell-way with "where" keyword.
Hi folks, I really like this idea. But I couldn't help but think
of a few alternative ways. I'm no language design expert by any
means, but I'm a little concerned with the idea of an 'expression'
preceding a 'block'. Maybe I'm naive (actually, I'm pretty sure I
am), but I think a decorator-like syntax would be a little more
Pythonic. Here's a small example:
def where(closure=None, *v):
if not False in v:
closure(*v)
def foo(a, b):
@where(a: int, b: int):
return str(a) + str(b)
raise TypeMismatch
The (variable : type) could be turned into a syntact sugar for
(type(variable) is type). Basically, this would be a simple
implementation of the so called "closures", where a decorator is
able to 'receive' a code block, which would be passed as a
function as the first argument of the decorator. (Is this clear?)
As I said, I'm no language design expert and I'm sure I'm breaking
a few important rules here heh. But I find it cool. This is not a
proposal. I'm just thinking out loud :)
Jonas
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
