RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 8 16:34:37 EST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/042971.html

On Monday 08 March 2004 03:32 pm, Aahz wrote:
 > No, that's not right.  If
 >
 >     def foo() [w1, w2]: pass
 >
 > is valid, this must also always be valid:
 >
 >     def foo() [w2]: pass

Perhaps it should also be valid, but "must" is pretty strong.  This is still 
Python, and the general "consenting adults" philosophy shouldn't be 
abandoned.

 > I'm not sure to what extent we can/should enforce this, but I'm -1 on
 > any proposal for which this isn't the documented behavior.

I think we're on shaky ground if we require any sort of equivalence here, 
simply because it might make no sense at all for specific decorators to be 
stacked out of order or in unusual combinations.  I'm quite happy for the PEP 
and the final documentation to make recommendations, but hard requirements of 
this sort are difficult to tolerate given the difficulty of even defining 
"validity".

As an (admittedly trivial) example, I'd be quite happy for:

    class Color [valuemap]:
        red = rgb(255, 0, 0)
        blue  = rgb(0, 255, 0)
        green = rgb(0, 0, 255)

to cause the name Color to be bound to a non-callable object.  Why must the 
decorators be required to return callables?  It will not make sense in all 
circumstances when a decorator is being used.

  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/042971.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 318 - generality of list; restrictions on elements