On Jun 25, 2004, at 5:51 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2004, at 3:52 PM, Brian L. wrote: > >> such a bad way. The brackets actually set off the decorators nicely. >> Something like: >> >> [decorators] >> def func(args): >> pass >> > > +1 > > IMHO, making decorators functions is a bad idea. Decorators are > metadata about the function to which they refer. Using the same > syntax for decorators as for functions conceptually weakens this > distinction and encourages misuse of decorators, even to the point of > potentially encouraging (or implying) side-effects as a result of > decoration. Uh, the WHOLE POINT we want this is to have side-effects. If it doesn't make the function act in a different way, it might as well live in the doc string or something. The most wanted use cases are all function transformations, not the setting attributes on function objects. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2357 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040626/c5dd3bb1/smime.bin
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