On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:06:13 +0100
Gareth McCaughan <gmccaughan at synaptics-uk.com> wrote:
> def p_statement_expr(self, p):
> """docstring goes here"""
> print p[1]
> decorated:
> staticmethod
> grammarrule('statement : expression')
> version("Added in 2.4")
> deprecatedmethod
> type_(None)
>
> which keeps the arguments with the function name,
> keeps the body right after the name and arguments, and
> puts the decoration after the body which corresponds
> with the order in which things actually happen (though
> not necessarily the best order for understanding the
> code).
You seem to have missed the point of function decorations entirely. We
already have what you offer in current Python syntax. The point was to
move decorations to near/next to the function signature.
Read the PEP:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0318.html
> I actually quite like this. It seems more Pythonic
> than the @foo proposal. Its obvious problem is that
> it involves something that looks at first glance like
> an ordinary suite of statements or expressions, but
> whose interpretation is substantially different. At
> least the @foo proposal avoids that.
What you like is what has existed with Python since the beginning.
- Josiah
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