In article <003601c47b34$0b4bf660$6700a8c0 at computer>, "Edward K. Ream" <edreamleo at charter.net> wrote: > I hope I am not being incredibly stupid, but I am thinking only of syntax > here. So wherever the community would have decided to put: > > @accepts <<whatever>> > > the new "syntax" would be: > > annotate.accepts <<whatever>> > > Do you see? The annotate "module" probably doesn't exist at all. I think of > it as a pseudo-module. That's why I wrote "from __future__ import > annotation as annotate" in the original post. > > My thinking is this: apparently people like the @ syntax. Why not do some > magic and compile module references to the annotation pseudo-module just as > it is presently proposed to compile the @ syntax. I'm not convinced this is possible in general (for all pythons, obviously it's possible by gross hacks in CPython) without making annotate into a keyword. And, I don't like the choice of the word, either, since I think decorators are more likely to be used to change the meaning of the definition and not just attach some meaningless annotation to it. Anyway, since decorators are quite different from normal control flow in Python I'd prefer to see them given a syntax that stands out, that makes it obvious that it's not just some slightly mysterious function call prior to the def. @syntax does that for me and yours doesn't. -- David Eppstein Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
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