Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> writes: > to justify the language change. FWIW, It isn't to me. The new > syntax is yet another rule that people have to know to understand > Python code they read. That's OK if it produces enough value to > justify the burden. I question whether that's the case here. > > Perhsps the difficulty in pickling an acceptable syntax should be > taken as a warning sign that there's a problem with the feature. I just want to be clear that I know implementing my proposal involves an ugly hack, and I'm not fond of it. Nonetheless, I think it's important. I made the proposal in response to exactly the same instinct that Jim is reflecting here. If people really need a prefix syntax for decorators it would be best to at least _start_ with an implementation that doesn't involve core language changes, because the whole area looks quite perilous from a language design point of view. I'm saying without any desire to change Guido's mind about '@', but just to explain the reasons that I brought up the idea in the first place. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
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