> I realize what your current position on this topic is, but I'd like > to encourage you to at least reconsider it for a moment. Please remember the procedure. The community is to come up with *one* alternative that they universally prefer over @decorators; otherwise, @decorators-before-def will stay. (I'll even give you *two* if the community can agree that both are acceptable and really wishes to let me pick one.) Plenty of people agree with me on this particular issue (decorators inside or outside the def); you have to convince them first before pleading with me. I don't want to have to argue every single detail. As it stands now, it looks like the community is having a hard time agreeing on anything, which suggests that I might as well stick with @decorators-before-def. I try to limit my posts to (a) procedural adjustments; (b) clarifications of my previously stated position; (c) clarifications of other factual misunderstandings; (d) pointing out issues that nobody else has brought up yet. I try not to be pulled into the debate; I simply can't afford the time. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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