Extending Python Syntax with @

In article <fkbv40dh57pk9527seaf3etjd0k7kncugc at 4ax.com>,
David MacQuigg  <dmq at gain.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Wouldn't it be nice, for example, if instead of special keywords like>'lambda' and 'yield', we had used '@(args)' and '...@return'.  ( No, I'm>not advocating we go back and change what has been done.)  In both>these cases, we had a well-established syntax that needed a slight>variation.  >>The 'lambda function' for example, was needed to cram a small block of>code into a tight space.  By saying '@x,y:' instead of 'lambda x,y:',>we not only avoid the need for a new keyword, but we better serve the>purpose of tightly packing some code.  We would also avoid mystifying>beginners.  "It has no magic meaning.  It's just a way to write a>function without a name."
			.
			.
			.
No, for me it would be so far from nice I first suspected you
of jesting, because, from my background, "lambda" *does* have
a magic meaning, one that long precedes its (entirely apt) use
in Python.  For you, '@(args)' might indeed be more evocative;
for me, not calling a lambda "lambda" would be a big loss.

I think APL and J (and Perl) are plenty meritorious.  I prefer
Python--much.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net