why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?

[holger krekel]

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Michele Simionato wrote:
> 
> > Erik, I would concede you that there is the possibility of confusion
> > between
> > 
> > def A is B:
> >    pass
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > if A is B: do_something()
> > 
> > since in the first case "A is B" means "A is an instance of the
> > descriptor B"
> > whereas in the second case "A is B" means "A is the descriptor B".
> 
> Which is still why I think "as" would be preferable, since "as"
> inherently means nothing (it's an auxiliary keyword), and "as" even has
> a better (to me) implication here, when I write
> 
> 	def f(x) as staticmethod: ...
> 
> I'm indicating staticmethod as a sort of property (not in the Python
> "properties" sense) of the function, rather than the potential is-a
> relationship suggested by the use of "is."
> 
> As I said in an earlier message, I'm not extremely forceful about it, I
> just think "as" works a little better than "is."
> 
> > Moreover, who is the typical user who is going to use the extended
> > syntax?
> 
> Agreed.  It is a fairly marginal point, but still I think "as" wins out
> on its own merits.  Judgement call, and I'm willing to agree to
> disagree.

Ok, then we must call upon our modern oracle, Google.  For 

    python "function as"

it returns 11000 hits and more than 27000 hits for

    python "function is"

so 'is' wins by a clear lead :-)

    holger