On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, [ISO-8859-1] "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
>
>> But must it be "@", such an eye-catching, ugly piece
>> of flie-dirt?
>
>If you don't like the current proposal, try to find objective
>reasons, in addition to the subjective ones. Also, try to come
>up with counter-proposals that are well thought-out, instead of
>being created in a rush. In particular, if all you are concerned
>with is the specific choice of operator, propose a different one.
BTW, hat is wrong with my %-proposal:
def foo(self) % decor():
body
and
def foo(self) % (decor(), decor1(args), ...):
body
- it seems to satisfy the needs.
This form could also be added (for consistency):
def foo(self): # old way
body
foo %= decor()
or
foo %= (decor(), decor1(args), ...)
or
foo = foo % (decor())
+ and this doesnt require to add new symbol (@),
+ it is semantically consistant with % meaning as a formatting
("decorating") operation, although in case of def the part
being decorated is on LHS, while in string formatting arguments
are being "decorated" according to the format string.
I want to hear the critics of this as I see this a better syntax
to the decoration needs!
>Regards,
>Martin
Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
--
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3
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