Ivan Voras wrote:
> Well, no, but this might be due to personal tastes. At least, I don't
> think it's better then some other alternatives. For example, in C99 you
> can do:
>
> static struct option_s foo_option = {
> .name = "foo",
> .type = O_STRING,
> .def_value = "default"
> };
>
> At least to me, this looks even better than the Pascal's syntax.
foo_option = OptionS(
name="foo",
type=O_STRING,
def_value="default"
)
So doesn't the Python analog even look better than C? If so, you don't
need new syntax:
>>> def with_(obj, **update):
... for nv in update.iteritems():
... setattr(obj, *nv)
...
>>> with_(a.long.way.to.tipperary,
... alpha=42,
... beta="yadda",
... gamma=None
... )
>>> a.long.way.to.tipperary
A(alpha=42, beta='yadda', gamma=None)
Peter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
