Björn Lindström a écrit : > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>I've yet to see a convincing argument against simply assigning values >>to names, then using those names. > > > The problem with that is that you can't pass around the names of objects > that are used for other things. Obviously they make enums unnecessary, > but only people damaged by non-dynamic languages could think that's the > main point. ;-) > > Being able to do that precludes the need for converting going back and > forth between strings and method names when you need to do things like > keeping a list of function names, even when you need to be able to > change what those function names point to. > > Python doesn't really need to introduce a new type to do this. It's > already there, as what we usually just call names. Probably this > discussion would benefit from talking about names rather than symbols, > as that seems to confuse some people. > > So, Python already has symbols. What we need is a way to refer to these > symbols explicitly. I would suggest to do it like in Lisp: > > quote(spam) > > Of course, this would preferably be implemented so that it doesn't just > work on simple names: > > quote(spam(eggs)) > > I syntactic sugar, like ' in Lisp, could be introduced later, but I > don't think that would be strictly necessary. >
Well, if this already exists in Python's internals, then, it would be great just to expose them. Now, just being able to write : >>> quote(spam) quote(spam) requires a new syntax so that spam is not resolved *before* calling the quote method. Pierre -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
