Tim Hochberg wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>> Duncan Booth wrote:
>>>> make Element html:
>>>> make Element body:
>>>> make Element p:
>>>> text('But this ')
>>>> make Element strong:
>>>> text('could')
>>>> text(' be made to work')
>>>
>>> This is nice. I'll have to play around with it a bit to see how hard
>>> it would be to make it work.
>>
>> Okay, I think it'll work[1]. I'm going to update this section to
>> something more like:
>>
>>
>> Open Issues
>> ===========
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Should users of the make statement be able to determine in which dict
>> object the code is executed? This would allow the make statement to
>> be used in situations where a normal dict object would not suffice,
>> e.g. if order and repeated names must be allowed. Allowing this sort
>> of customization could allow XML to be written like::
>
> I think this PEP is going off the rails. It's primary virtue was that it
> was a simpler, clearer way to write:
>
> class Foo(args):
> __metaclass__ = some_metaclass
> #...
>
> Once it starts calling secret magic methods behind the scenes it's
> losing that virture. And for what? Supporting some use cases that have
> reasonable solutions already?
That's why it's in the Open Issues section. I expect most of these open
issues to be resolved by rejection. (At least, that's my preferred
resolution.) But since they people have brought them up, I think they
need to be addressed as completely as possible.
But I think you make a good point that this particular case can be just
as easily done using a with-statement (I think). I'll add that to this
part of the PEP (once I'm sure it works).
STeVe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
