RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 6 03:21:21 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047021.html

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Guido's principal argument against list-after-def, if I recall 
> correctly, was that it is ugly when multiple or lengthy decorators are 
> involved.  But, "ugly" isn't an argument any more, so that shouldn't 
> rule out list-after-def.  :)

I think you're confusing "ugly" (the @ form) with "potentially hidden
several lines down" (list-after-def). My beef with list-after-def is
that it's easy to overlook. I suspect in many cases, the decorating of
a function or method will fundamentally alter the behaviour of the
function or method, so in that case, I'd prefer to make it as obvious
as possible.

Anthony

-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony at interlink.com.au>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047021.html below:

[Python-Dev] A usability argument for list-after-def