"Dan Sommers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:26:24 -0400, > "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have a suggestion I don't remember seeing for flagging which vars to >> autoinit without new syntax: use '_' instead of '.'. I have never seen >> local vars with a leading '_'. So, in combination with whatever other >> mechanism (metaclass, __init__ decorator?) > >> def __init__(self, _x, y, _z) : > >> would automatically do self.x = _x, self.z = _z, but not self.y = y. > >> Terry J. Reedy > > That's a pretty big change; now all formal parameters beginning with an > underscore have a brand new meaning.
As I said, 'in combination with whatever other mechanism', meaning one that one has to intentionally invoke. So there would be no code breaking: the suggestion is for a convention used with currently available mechanism (assuming that such is possible) that would give the fine-grained control not so easily possible with the current update_dict_with_locals idiom. It would be easier to write the decorator if it were passed the (quoted) names of the parameters to be 'attributed'. But then the user would have to write and keep in synchrony two lists, one a (quoted) subset of the other. So I thought it better to have the decorator writer and decorator function work a little harder to introspect and interpret one list with some items marked somehow in a currently legal but unusual manner. > How about this: > > def __init__(self, self.x, y, self.z): > # self.x, self.z from first and third explicit parameters This is new syntax that is not currently legal. My suggestion was for a solution that avoided that difficulty and that could, I believe, be implemented now, in less time that this thread has been going on, rather than maybe some years from now. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
