Christophe Cavalaria wrote: > Paul Morrow wrote: > > >> class Foo: >> """ This describes the Foo class as normal. """ >> __metaclass__ = M >> __author__ = 'Paul Morrow' >> __version__ = '0.1' >> __automethods__ = True >> >> >> def baz(self, a, b): >> """ This describes the baz method. """ >> __synchronized__ = True >> __returns__ = None >> __author__ = 'Neville Shunt' >> # body of baz goes here... > > > It's a function call that masquerades as an attribute assignment. How worse > can it be ? How about we create new syntax that uses an @ and special words, where the words correspond with functions to be called. That's what is seriously being considered. And that would be worse (IMO). > can it be ? There's also the fact that it can't handle named parameters > like a regular function call. You can't write that : > > def foo(): > __decoration__ = (1,1,param=True) > As far as I know, we can't do that with the current decorator proposals either. [But that is something that I've often wanted to do (create a tuple that contains named arguments).]
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