[Python-Dev] Questions about '@' in pep 318

[Edward K. Ream]

> > I was using __future__ by way of explanation.  I do hope namespaces
could
> > somehow denote annotations.  My off-the-cuff suggestion was for
> > pseudo-modules, so maybe the normal module rules could be sidestepped?
>
> I don't see how this would be possible. The plan is that arbitrary
> callables can be used as decorations, as long as they take a single
> argument.

Ok.  Consider me dense.  But I'm just wanting something that _looks_ like a
module reference but isn't really.  What it is really is a stand-in for '@'.
Wouldn't this allow user-defined annotations, provided the compiler was in
on the joke?  In essence, what I am asking for is
just-another-name-for-at-sign.

So: just-another-name-for-at-sign.arbitrary-callable

Or maybe I should hope for <...> :-)

Edward
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Ream   email:  edreamleo at charter.net
Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------