On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 15:32, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > 2. people who think that decorators without arguments are pointless, and > > don't agree amongst themselves on the proper syntax, but don't necessarily > > care that much as long as there *is* one. (But there may be a slight > > leaning towards either of the C#-inspired variants.) > > So they should defend @ because it's there. I hate repeating myself, but I will anyway. :) I'm in camp 2, but now that pie decorators are in, and I've had a chance to convert my code to use them, I'm strongly +1 in favor of this syntax. It stands out nicely, and to me indicates a stronger affinity to the def that follows it than the C# syntax. I was never in favor of C# syntax, and I'm glad it wasn't chosen. I strongly disliked that it subtly changed the semantics of currently valid Python. I like that pie decorators code cannot run in older Pythons, because if it /could/ it certainly wouldn't work. 'scuze-me-while-i-eat-the-pie-ly y'rs, -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/20040805/af59ded4/attachment.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