On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 06:36, Jp Calderone wrote:
> I realize there is little or no chance of '@decorator' being pulled
> from 2.4a2. I hope that something along the lines of the above will be
> considered, instead, for the next alpha, unless there is widespread
> community support for '@decorator', as opposed to the ridiculously faint
> support ("it's better than nothing") currently behind it.
Personally I think it's not just better than nothing, it's better than
any of the alternatives I've seen, including the do-nothing option.
I added a comment to your blog post in defence of @decorator --
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jcalderone/3913.html?thread=2121#t2121
but lets not restart a syntax debate here.
My guess is that the syntax will grow on people as they use it. If not
there is the alternative of using one of the pure-python versions or
just carrying on using the existing way of doing things.
Mark
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