[Types-sig] Re: Meta-classes discussion starter

[Tim Peters]

[John Skaller]
> ...
> And that is it. :-) There is no such thing as a class :-))
> It is nothing more than a function which makes objects.

[Tim]
>> John, Python is not a functional language, and there's not a shadow
>> of a hint that it will ever become one.

[John]
>         You're not following.

You're not anticipating <wink>.

> I'm analysing the _structure_ of a system. I'm telling you classes are
> _isomorphic_ to functions; and providing the isomorphism.

Up above, yes; below, no.  You went quite a ways beyond casting the
semantics in functional form:  (A) you want others to adopt that view of
semantics too; and, (B) you want programmatic support for that view added to
Python.

> I didn't claim 'python was a functional language'.

No, I hardly think anyone would.  You do want to move it in that direction,
though, don't you?  Let's cut to the chase:

> ...
> My suggestion is for more builtin functions, of the kind needed
> to construct functions.

>> How about a specific proposal?

>         There is some code available for browsing.

How about a specific proposal?

most-people-don't-even-get-one-engraved-invitation<wink>-ly y'rs  - tim