Bengt Richter wrote: > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:41:33 -0400, Nicolas Fleury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I mean should angle brackets <> like in C++, or another operator, be >>used instead? > > I am getting the feeling that your PEP is about a means to do something > C++-like > in python, not necessarily to enhance python ;-) IOW, it seems like you > want the [<new syntax>] to do something like C++ <type_spec> in templates?
Yes, exactly. Actually Guido also mentionned pointy brackets: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=86641 > (BTW, I have nothing against giving python new capabilities (quite the > reverse), > but not by grafting limbs from other animals ;-) If I look at a very recent blog entry of Guido, it seems the idea is still in the air: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=92662 > Maybe you want hidden name-mangling of function defs according to arg types > and corresponding dispatching of calls? I am afraid I am still not clear > on the fundamental motivation for all this ;-) I wrote the PEP to see if was the only one that would benefit from generic types *before* having optional static typing in the language. It seems I'm the only one;) According to blog entry 86641, Guido himself is prototyping with __getitem__. However, I cannot do the same, because the framework I use is much more complete and keyword arguments are a must. Regards, Nicolas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
