On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:32:02 -0700, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I_vote_yes(James): I_understand_what_it_does = True Makes_code_formatting_way_more_managable_in_tough_cases = True Makes_code_way_more_readable = True To_cool = True
On Friday 15 April 2005 04:45 pm, Brian Sabbey wrote:Here is a pre-PEP for what I call "suite-based keyword arguments". The mechanism described here is intended to act as a complement to thunks. Please let me know what you think.
Kind of cool. If we had full lambdas aka as anonymous defs (def foo(...) with foo left out ;-) would this be concise sugar for the equivalents shown below your examples?
(The rule for parsing the suite of an anonymous def is that the left column of the first non-space character of the first suite statement following the def(): becomes the suite indent reference, and a dedent to the left of that ends the def(): or a closing bracket not opened in the def(): suite also ends it. Otherwise it is standard suite indentation)
Suite-Based Keyword Arguments -----------------------------
Passing complicated arguments to functions is currently awkward in Python. For example, the typical way to define a class property winds up polluting the class's namespace with the property's get/set methods. By allowing keyword arguments to be defined in a suite following a function call, complicated arguments can be passed in a cleaner, easier way.
Examples ========
Using suite-based keyword arguments, the code
f(x = 1)
is equivalent to
f(): x = 1
f(**def(): x = 1 return vars())
Yes, it seems it would just be sugar for full lambdas. Although, in this example and the others, wouldn't you have to actually call the anonymous function?
f(**(def():
x = 1
return vars())())Otherwise it seems like you are trying to pass a function, not the keywords the function returns.
One could, of course, also do the same with a named function:
def no_longer_anonymous():
x = 1
return vars()f(**no_longer_anonymous())
-Brian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
