Michael Sparks wrote: > Nick Coghlan> [make block optional for one decorator ?] > Barry Warsaw> [Better, but requires keyword, and hence (?) > __future__ ] > > As previously noted the arguments against the length of the > decorator in the > single case, I view as advantages when showing code to new users or > maintainers. If you allow the keyword and the single decorator on the same line, this argument comes down to "how long is the keyword?" >>> try: a = 3 ... except Exception, x: ... print "Error", x Nobody seems to have a problem typing "try:" again and again. I'm not sure why "decorate:" is receiving such pessimistic scrutiny. But then, I wasn't hanging about when try/except came into being--perhaps it had similar difficulties. > As for whether it's the right keyword or not, I'm not sure > I'm qualified to > say, but decorators seem much more like declarations of > function properties > in all the use cases I've seen. The proposal, in effect, creates a declarative suite as opposed to the more traditional imperative suite. Perhaps "declare:" would be more appropriate (but give your brain a week to mull it over ;). > More seriously though, if there is interest I'll see what I > can do about cleaning up the patch to resolve the scoping issue. I'm certainly interested; thanks for churning out an implementation. Robert Brewer MIS Amor Ministries fumanchu at amor.org
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