At 01:14 AM 8/3/04 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote: >Barry Warsaw wrote: >>On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 10:40, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>>@decorator won? When did that happen? >> >>First I heard about it was when I saw Anthony's checkin messages. Maybe >>it was throwing that pie that inspired Guido -- an '@' does kind of look >>like a pie. I think Anthony's checkin message was accurate enough >>though -- it's the syntax everyone can hate equally. But I'm glad >>/something/ made it in! >>print>>-set-the-precedent-ly y'rs, >>-Barry > >Hey, I was just going off Guido's decision (in email - looking back, it >wasn't cc'd to python-dev, which probably explains the lack of 400 >followups <wink>) > >Channelling the BDFL, I think the idea was to put it in 2.4a2, and see >how it works for people. If it turns out that it's really really really >hated, we can try something else in a3. Guido can of course follow up >to this (hint hint) and give his own answers. I would think the fact that the '[decorators]' syntax can be implemented in pure Python (no changes to the interpreter) for existing Python versions would give more weight to it. That is, if someone wants to implement a decorator that's forwards and backwards-compatible, that's possible with the list syntax, but not the @ syntax.
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