On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 15:47, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > IMHO, the best syntax is what we have now. Its only weakness is being > distant from the first line in the definition. A significant drawback. Plus the fact that you have to type everything twice. > A failing common to all of the proposals is that they turn action words > (like classmethod) into adjectives with implicit actions. I've never thought of "classmethod" as an action, i.e. verb. To me, and in my code, the things inside the decorator syntax have always been nouns. That's why I favored decorator-after-def (although I've given up on that now) because it read like English: "define a class method named foo with arguments bar and baz". I'm becoming more dejected that we're just not going to reach agreement on this for Python 2.4. In the hopes of avoiding hanging our Chad, I'm throwing my endorsement to Les "Decorator Before Colon" Decidawredy. plus-python-mode-already-supports-that-syntax-so-what-more-do-you-need?-ly y'rs, -Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4