On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:46:37AM -0400, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 08 October 2002, Neil Schemenauer said:
> > I propose to use the syntax that Guido is currently considering
> > for static method declarations.
>
> I haven't been following python-dev; if this is seriously on the table
> for Python 2.3, by all means let's follow that example.  If it's just
> "under consideration" but likely to be dropped in the end, I'm a bit
> wary of it (although it's still nice syntax).

He had it on one of his slides at Python 10.  The three candidates were

    def static foo(...):

    static def foo(...):

    def foo [static] (...):

I played around with a few PTL modules.  I think the 'def foo [static]'
form looks best.  The braces are unnecessary syntactically but are a
good indicator that something special is going on.

I don't know what Guido prefers.  I'll probably ask him before
implementing something.

> Templates are still quite different from regular functions; I'd prefer
> to keep "template" as the primary way way to declare a template.

I find 'template foo [plain] (...)' to be a little verbose so I prefer
def.  The way I look at it, def is short for "define".  It doesn't
necessarily mean a normal function is being defined.

> I prefer "html" to "markup": that way, if it turns out that the right
> quoting rules for XHTML or XML or !?%ML are subtly different, we just
> extend PTL to recognize a new type of marked-up text.  For now,
> everything will just be HTML.

Yes, and I think using the name from the text/* MIME type makes sense.

> I could live with 'html' instead of 'htmlstr' too.

'htmlstr' is okay with me.  I wonder if we should add 'htmlquote' as
well.  It's complementary.  'htmlstr' creates a markup string type by
not quoting the argument will 'htmlquote' does quote the argument.

  Neil