> > So they should defend @ because it's there. > > I hate repeating myself, but I will anyway. :) Thanks. > 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'm glad to see people happy with the current implementation. > 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. I'm strongly against "I'm sick of it" and "I don't care [anymore]" implemented features. Seeing everyone complaining and no positive reactions to the current implementation certainly feels like something is wrong. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net
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