RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 6 04:09:07 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047027.html

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:21:21 +1000, Anthony Baxter
<anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

Since this thread has become something of a poll anyway, I'll simply
add: I agree.

Jeremy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047027.html below:

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