> I made the proposal in response to exactly the same instinct that Jim > is reflecting here. If people really need a prefix syntax for > decorators it would be best to at least _start_ with an implementation > that doesn't involve core language changes, because the whole area > looks quite perilous from a language design point of view. We *had* an implementation without core language changes, but it was a postfix syntax. A prefix syntax should be designed with future usability in mind exclusively, unconstrained by "implementability without language changes". That's a much more stifling requirement than the requirement that existing code shouldn't be broken (which is stifling enough in itself but IMO unavoidable). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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