On Aug 8, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Bill Janssen wrote: > 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? A function being a generator only* affects the return value, so not knowing what functions are generator functions are really just a special case of not knowing the return value of any function. That can be solved with documentation, or a decorator. e.g. @returns(types.GeneratorType) James *: well not really, but to the external caller it's equivalent.
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