+1 But only if semantically regarded *by the language* as literals rather than higher-order applications, as is (admittedly) implied if not explicit in the PEP. jb On Jun 29, 2004, at 8:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Barry Warsaw wrote: >> I doubt he will respond. I think Guido has decided what the semantics >> will be and is just waffling over what syntax to choose. /I'm/ >> waiting >> for Tim to respond, because he'll get a clear image on his BCR (BDFL >> Channel Receptor) a few days before Guido makes up his mind and posts >> his pronouncement. > > I'm now hoping that he goes for the list-before-def approach, since > Phillip seems to have shown that it would then be possible to: > a) get to use decorators > b) write backwards compatible code (albeit with a little magic to do > so) > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia > Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268 > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jbone%40place.org >
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