[Guido] > > In the discussion on decorators months ago, solutions involving > > special syntax inside the block were ruled out early on. Basically, > > you shouldn't have to peek inside the block to find out important > > external properties of the function. [Bill Janssen] > Guido, could you expand on this principle a bit? Just stated as it > is, it sounds as pointless (to my untutored mind, at least :-), as the > arguments about "@ is ugly, so it shouldn't be used". After all, > isn't "what the function does" an important external property of the > function, and don't you have to peek inside the block to determine > that? For instance, how do you know whether a function is a generator > unless you look for yield statements inside it? It's probably untenable as a formal principle. :-) Nevertheless I don't like to put decorators in the method body. I think it has something to do with the fact that normally one thinks of the body contents as relevalt to "call-time" while decorators happen at "definition-time". And before you bring up docstrings as a counterexample, yes, they should ideally have been designed to precede the method, too. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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