why not extending the syntax for classes, too ?

[Michele Simionato]

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message news:<3E454839.89B702E6 at alcyone.com>...
> Michele Simionato wrote:
> 
> > I would agree with you with the use in functions, however my point
> > here is
> > that "is" can be extended to classes, whereas "as" cannot.
> 
> I don't understand this point, you seem to have completely sidestepped
> my objections.

Sorry, I meant: for functions I would accept both "is" and "as". 
If you say "is" is bad because it means identity, I would
agree with you; if Holger says "as" is bad since it means renaming, I
would agree with him. To me, with respect to functions, "is" and
"as" are equivalent, in the sense that both have some disadvantage
and I have no good reason to chose one over the other. However, the
risk of confusion in both case is 0.000000001% (IMO), therefore I would 
be equally happy with both proposals. But having in mind the extension
to metaclasses, "is" becomes the right choice to me.

Cheers,

                                  Michele