On Aug 2, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >>> The only real necessary restriction on the @ operator is that its >>> argument be callable and take a single argument. Many expressions > could >>> return a callable object. Why not let them? Is it really worth > having a >>> special case just to SyntaxError expressions that sometimes won't > result >>> in an appropriate callable? >>> >>> Things someone might want to do, ordered roughly from most > reasonable to >>> least reasonable ;) >>> @foo().bar() >>> @foo or bar >>> @mydecorators['foo'] >>> @lambda f: foo(f) or bar(f) >>> >>> Why disallow these forms? It seems quite difficult, especially, to >>> explain why the first one does not, or should not, work. >>> >>> James >>> >> >> For what it's worth, I agree with James completely. >> >> Jp > > I concur. > > > Raymond Ditto. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3589 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040803/9809f219/smime.bin
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