RetroSearch Browse

Thu Aug 5 23:03:17 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046944.html

"Nicolas Fleury" <nidoizo at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ceu2ec$ugo$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> IxokaI wrote:
> Is there ambiguities with the following?
>
> def decorator1(decoratorN(foo))(arg1, argN): pass
> def decorator1(decoratorN(foo(arg1, argN))): pass
> def(decorator1, decoratorN) foo(arg1, argN): pass

If you name the decos decorator1, etc, not really ambigous, mearly hard to
find the foo in the soup.  But try

def bar(baz(foo))(a1,aN): pass

and it becomes easily ambigous.  Anyway, by current Python syntax,
decoN(foo) look like a function call on an *existing* object foo.  The
current situation is that name(arg) is always a func call except when name
*immediately* follows def.  Like Tim, I really don't want that to change.

Terry J. Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046944.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: @decorators, the PEP and the "options" out there?