RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 10 11:54:44 EST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043031.html

On 10-mrt-04, at 17:30, Aahz wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> In any case, *I* would prefer not to let the semantics require
>> anything, and to make this just a (preferred) shorthand for applying
>> arbitrary transformations to something that starts out as a function.
>
> All right, I've done my duty as the Loyal Opposition ;-), and I don't
> care enough to keep arguing.
>
> That still leaves the question for what *is* allowed within the
> brackets.  AFAICT, the options are
>
> * A single identifier (which must be a callable)

Why not allow dotted name (foomod.modifier) as well?

>
> * Comma-separated list of identifiers (which must be callables)

* A comma-seperated list of expressions (which must produce callables)

>
> * Arbitrary expression (which must produce a sequence of callables)

This seems to allow def foo() ``[[x for x in sequence]]: pass`` which 
is very odd.

>
> BTW, have we agreed on the order in which decorators will be applied?
> -- 
> Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         
> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>
> "Do not taunt happy fun for loops. Do not change lists you are looping 
> over."
> --Remco Gerlich, comp.lang.python

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043031.html below:

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