Unification of Methods and Functions

[David MacQuigg]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 07:17:35 -0600, "Dave Brueck"
<dave at pythonapocrypha.com> wrote:
>David MacQuigg wrote:

>> >another thread I suggested you take the time to learn what the 2 or 3 most
>> >common uses are for each of the features that will be affected, and show both
>> >the implementation and use in current Python and after your proposed changes.
>> >Not only will doing this give a clear example to everyone, it'll also show that
>> >you are at least aware of how the different function/method forms are used
>> >today in _real programs_ and not contrived examples - after re-reading some of
>> >your comments I have my doubts.
>>
>> I have shown the 4 function/method forms I'm aware of, and how to
>> translate them to a simpler syntax, in Appendix 1 of Prototypes.doc at
>> http://ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/Python  Have you read that?
>
>Yes, but as I pointed out elsewhere, it may help to write about this in some
>other context than your other proposals (the fact that this is buried in
>Appendix 1 under a title of "Translating Python Classes to Prototypes" doesn't
>lend itself to much reader traffic).

I've put some simple examples comparing Python 2 to the proposed
Unified Function Syntax at http://ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/Python
These are all pretty simple, and show just the changes necessary to
unify functions and methods.  More examples are welcome.  Send me
anything you think will be difficult to translate to the new syntax.

I've also moved the Appendix 1: Translating Python Classes from
Prototypes.doc to PrototypeSyntax.doc.  These are "edge cases".
Unlike the simple examples above, the purpose is to show that all the
existing classes in Python can be migrated to the proposed syntax.

-- Dave