PEP 309 - Built-in closure type (with tentative syntax proposal)

[James J. Besemer]

Peter Harris wrote:

> So you can freeze a function or other callable with a partial
> argument list and keyword arguments into a handy callable
> object.
 >
 > [...]
 >
> The syntax proposal is more controversial. I want a function
> call operator @(*args,**kw) that instead of invoking __call__ on its
> left argument, returns a closure object.
> 
 > [...]
 >
> I'm a great fan of concise syntax, and this really appeals to me,
> but what is the community view? Does python need a closure type?
> Is the @ syntax too ugly to be worth it?

I have no strong feelings either way towards your PEP.  Off hand, it strikes 
me as not all that far removed from generators, which are already in the 
language.  (Though I question if "self.args+args" is really what should be in 
the last line of the reference implementation.)

But I gotta wonder -- if people are having SO MUCH trouble with a trivial 
little thing like PEP 308, it would strike me as hypocritical of them to 
endorse this one.

<<most of the same rhetorical arguments apply equally well here>>

Then too, the subject your PEP is sufficiently complex that many people who 
presently express a strong opinion on PEP 308 might remain silent about 
number 309.

Best o' luck.

Regards

--jb


-- 
James J. Besemer		503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St.		503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557	mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
				http://cascade-sys.com