generator functions in another language

[hdante]

On May 6, 12:28 am, castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
>
> There's a process decorator to functions in a module.
>
> [supposes]
>
> @process
> def datafile( processdict ):
>    processdict.modify( )
>    op= yield
>    op.call( ) in processdict
>    # op.call( ) in namespace
>
> More simply:
>
> @process
> def datafile( processdict ):
>    processdict.modify( )
>    interaction_object= yield
>    invoke( interaction_object, processdict )
>    #or interaction_object.invoke( **processdict )
>    processdict.commit( )
>
> Making each execution of process a self-modifying disk file.
> Interaction_object could be binary or text.  If text, we'd have a
> cross-language executable, but I'm suspicious it wouldn't be vacuous
> as a Python of Python composition: would other languages pass other
> than Python programs?
>
> I think relational databases are the only in there.  In other words, I
> think Python would make a wholly better stored procedure and query
> language than those of databases.  Certainly I'm suspicious that's
> naivete speaking up; I question, would it?  Is there more risk of or
> opportunity for malicious execution?  Simply put, can we get
> primitives in to databases?  What's an example of a [optionally real]
> operation on the primitives that doesn't map pretty well into SQL?
> How do you want to write base-case scenarios if they're going to be
> literals?

 Datafiles could be implemented with SQL. Consider SQL:

 SELECT * FROM process_dict where id = 1
 .
 SELECT * FROM process_dict where id = 1

 Obviously, this is all a supposition, I'm not claiming the code is
perfect (or am I ?). If datafiles could be implemented with SQL and
storing text requires datafiles, then I can store text with datafiles
(haha !). Would you consider doing this ? One could even store python
decorated serialized code using SQL [supposition]. But would it be
useful [haha !] ?

 I don't know.