Roman Suzi wrote: > 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 Guido has already ruled out the decorators-after-function-arguments form. See the last week's archives for python-dev - thread subject was "def fn (args) [dec,dec]:" -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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