> > I'm in camp 2, but now that pie decorators are in, and I've had a chance > > to convert my code to use them, I'm strongly +1 in favor of this > > syntax. It stands out nicely, and to me indicates a stronger affinity > > to the def that follows it than the C# syntax. > > I'm glad to see people happy with the current implementation. > > > I was never in favor of C# syntax, and I'm glad it wasn't chosen. I > > strongly disliked that it subtly changed the semantics of currently > > valid Python. I like that pie decorators code cannot run in older > > Pythons, because if it /could/ it certainly wouldn't work. > > I'm strongly against "I'm sick of it" and "I don't care [anymore]" > implemented features. Seeing everyone complaining and no positive > reactions to the current implementation certainly feels like > something is wrong. Sigh. I'm just a lurker here and I don't really want to add to all the heat. All that said, I'm +1 on the pie syntax (and being ugly means that it makes decorations obvious). To all proponents of list markup: that would be very hard to look up in the documentation. `@` should be easy to find in the index. To Gustavo in particular: people are sick of hearing endless repeats of the same old tired arguments (I certainly am). -- Christian Tanzer http://www.c-tanzer.at/
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