On Thu, Aug 05, 2004, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > So there it is, my personal argument for list-after-def as better than "@", > even if the list is over multiple lines: it's still much more clearly part > of the function definition, and that IMO is the most important thing the > syntax should convey, apart from listing the decorators themselves. +1 I've been staying out of this because I thought my preference had no chance to make it in (i.e. I don't care between "no decorators" and "@ decorators"), but if it's getting some revival, I want to make clear that I think putting decorators *after* ``def``, name, and parameter list but clearly *with* the function definition makes the most sense for readability -- in the simple cases. Who cares about the complex cases, because it's always going to be ugly? -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." --reddy at lion.austin.ibm.com
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