RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 3 18:06:12 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046728.html

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> 
> I'm speechless.  If the ambiguous
> 
>     [classmethod]
>     def foo(x):
>         ...
> 
> is rejected because it doesn't look like it does something to foo, how
> come there's suddenly a crop of solutions that have the same problem
> being proposed?  What you write looks like a call to the function
> decorate(), followed by a function method definition.  The
> "action-at-a-distance" that is presumed by the decorate() call is
> difficult to explain and a precedent for other worse hacks.  Its only
> point in favor seems to be that it doesn't use '@'.

   In my view, the strongest point in favor of a solution that involves 
calling functions rather than changing syntax is that the functions 
involved can be placed in the standard library rather than the 
interpreter.

   I believe a widely held view is that features can be supported by the 
stdlib do not merit language changes?

   Moreover, I have the impression that many people are clamoring for 
this feature, no matter how it ends up looking, because they simply 
*must have it*.  Well, if they must have it, why wait for 2.4, when 
clearly they can have it right now?

   Jp

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046728.html below:

[Python-Dev] 2.4a2, and @decorators