On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:45:51 -0700, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > [Anthony] > > I'm having trouble finding a single piece from you where you > > outline the problems you have with the [decorators] after args, > > before :. Could you possibly post a message to python-dev > > stating your problems with it? It's the major one I've been > > unable to find your objections to. > > And nobody else has expressed their objections to it either? :-) I thought it was obvious that this option was not acceptable. > (If I could design a language from scratch, I might want to move > docstrings to before the 'def' as well; I've come to appreciate this > in Java code. Fredrik Lundh's PythonDoc also uses comments prefixing > the method definition; he also uses @ so he should be happy with this > syntax, as he seemed to be when I mentioned it to him at EuroPython.) It's not at all clear that Fredrik likes it, but he doesn't participate in Python development any more so we may never know :-(. >From his blog: > ...so someone I've never heard of added a major syntactic feature to Python 2.4, > using a syntax that Guido doesn't really like. sorry, guys, but I liked Python better > when the core language was controlled by a single designer with a strong intuition. > the current design-by-arguing-until-nobody-cares-anymore-committee just don't > understand what made Python's design so damn good (as the "[new syntax] is no > worse than [existing operator] meaning [something when used with a given type]" > comment clearly shows). sigh. good thing nobody can force me to use decorators (or > update to 2.4, for that matter). time to finish my own interpreter, perhaps. or at least > start using a fresh one. Jeremy
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