Guido van Rossum wrote: > It seems a public outcry against @decorators has started. When I let > Anthony check it in for 2.4a2, the plan was to see how it fares in a2 > and a3, and possibly take it out in 2.4b1. If you don't want that to > happen, you might want to say something in public in defense of > @decorators. All along I've not been too particular on the syntax for decorators. I see the need for tham, and still have sneaking suspicion this will end up changing the way people use Python in many contexts. Now that the @ syntax is out, I am feeling it is the best of the many available options. All the proposals has pros and cons, but the @ syntax seems to always win with more pros, especially after more experimentation. I look forward to taking advantage of the decorators very soon. I can't imagine there are any further syntax options remaining, although I wouldn't be opposed if the community could put something together. Anyways, this hardly turns out to be a rallying defense. But the need for functionality is there, and the many syntax proposals have been weighed. The better option has already been committed in my eyes. I'm just glad >> wasn't involved, heh.
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