In article <3AA96ED4-876E-11D8-A42F-0003934AD54A at chello.se>, Simon Percivall <s.percivall at chello.se> wrote: > On 2004-04-06, at 01.24, David Eppstein wrote: > > > > Ok, then how about > > <decorator> > > def ... > > ? > > > > '<' can't start an expression or statement currently, can it? > > Yeah. I think that would look better. On the other hand ... > > On 2004-03-31, at 17.42, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Why does <...> look better than [...]? To me, <...> just reminds me > > of XML, which is totally the wrong association. > > > > There are several parsing problems with <...>: the lexer doesn't see < > > and > as matched brackets, so you won't be able to break lines without > > using a backslash, and the closing > is ambiguous -- it might be a > > comparison operator. Well, Mike Pall's long message "The Need for a Declarative Syntax" convinced me that some kind of bracketed prefix is the best location for these things, but I still don't like [...] because it already has a (useless) meaning, so declarators would pass silently in old Pythons. And the same objection applies to all other existing brackets. So, angle brackets seem like the cleanest remaining choice. Re the lexer, I don't see this as a big problem as long as multiple declarators can be handled by multiple <...> pairs. Re the ambiguity, I think comparisons shouldn't normally appear in declarators, so it's ok if they have to be parenthesized. -- David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/ Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
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