On Monday 2004-03-08 18:48, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Anyway, I seem to recall that the bracketed syntax was originally inspired
> by C#'s attribute mechanism, but you'd have to ask the original author to
> be sure.
I think I was the first to propose the bracketed syntax
(in <slrna40k88.2h9o.Gareth.McCaughan at g.local>, after Tim Peters
pointed out a problem with a different syntax I'd proposed for
the same purpose in <slrna3va8t.2a7p.Gareth.McCaughan at g.local>.
The proposal certainly wasn't in the least inspired by C#'s
attribute mechanism; I'd never even seen it then. For what
it's worth, I still have a strong preference for the original
"def f(args) [decorators]:" syntax, despite Guido's preference
for "def f [decorators] (args):".
The problem Tim pointed out was that the first-proposed syntax
def staticmethod f(args): ...
would confuse over-simple ad hoc parsers (in text editors,
code munging tools, etc.) into thinking that the above was
defining a function or method called "staticmethod".
A similar, but (much?) less severe, problem may attend
the syntax that just moves the decorator-spec to before
the argument list. I suspect this isn't serious enough
to count as a real objection.
--
g
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