RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 16 09:48:31 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047869.html

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 19:58, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 
> > What about the variant which makes the block optional when 
> > there is only one decorator?
> 
> Better, but I'm still not crazy about it, mostly because of the new
> keyword.  I think you'd have to add an __future__ to get it 
> into Python 2.4.

...which Guido hasn't completely ruled out (unlike most of the other
'potential' alternatives):
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047001.html .
Personally, I feel decorators are powerful enough to warrant a more
structured change process like __future__; it seemed to work quite well
for generators. Perhaps any new feature which ends in "-rators" warrants
it. ;)

Robert Brewer
MIS
Amor Ministries
fumanchu at amor.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047869.html below:

[Python-Dev] Decorator syntax J2 (decorate..def), with implementation