i like this idea (i posted some thoughts on it in the blog, but it's not
approved yet as of this writing)
in short, i suggested extending the idea to make it more a) generalized, b)
simple, c) intuitive, and d) flexible.
so instead of just using $ for attributes, you could use it anywhere you
define or reference a name.
as in..
class $a: pass
or
$a = 1
also, you might want to do something like this
b = ["zero", "one"]
$b[0] = 0
but that's ambiguous, so you need some sort of grouping mechanism
like for example
${b[0]} = 0
although "$(b[0]) = 0" might be just as reasonable.
also maybe:
b = 'bar'
foo$b = 'baz'
print foobar
#prints baz
${b}foo = 'baz'
print barfoo
#prints baz
$foo{b}baz = 1
print foobarbaz
#prints 1
but i know that last idea is getting way into php-land and probably isn't
(quote-unquote) necessary.
i know a lot of people would probably hate this idea with a passion. i tend
to be more liberal when it comes to adding concision and dynamicism in a
language, although that could be just because it's too tempting; i.e., maybe
it's only because somebody drew a line somewhere that we're coding in Python
instead of K.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
