In article <004501c47cdb$355743d0$6602a8c0 at arkdesktop>, "Andrew Koenig" <ark-mlist at att.net> wrote: > I like the following variation even better: > > def foo() | > classmethod | > accepts(int, int) | > returns(float): > > Alternatively, > > def foo() | classmethod | accepts(int, int) | returns(float): > > Yes, I understand that the first of these would require allowing a newline > after the | without ending the statement. If it were up to me, I would > allow a newline to follow any operator, but if that's too radical, then > allowing newlines between the def and the following : would be fine. Did you omit the full wink? Or did you forget that | is already a binop? Strictly speaking I guess it's unambiguous if one doesn't allow arbitrary expressions as decorators, but... -- David Eppstein Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
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