On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 21:07, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > That's not apparent to me. It seems to me that most people just got > sick of the endless debate and tuned out. The people who had urgent > need for the feature were probably a bit more persistent. > Personally, I don't see the cost vs. benefit of the feature to be > compelling. It seems there is not a lot you can do with a decorator > without resorting to ugly hacks (e.g. messing with bytecode). I disagree. I've written a lot of code that uses pre-pie decorators, but it's all fairly localized. It isn't spread out in every module, but it's contained, e.g., within a database package (wrap mutators in transaction handling decorators). Those use my own custom decorator, but in almost all other examples (in my own code -- I know others have different use cases), the decorators are built-ins like property, staticmethod, etc. For me, the benefit is significant because while I would still continue to use this particular feature, I think the pie decorator syntax makes the code /more/ readable, or more readable in the right way and in the right place. In general, I predict most Python code will continue to be blissfully unadorned with decorators. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040804/2436bbc3/attachment-0001.pgp
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