Brett Cannon wrote: > > I just want to suggest that we put > > this off and get 2.4 on the road without any decorator syntax at all. > > What do people think of that? > > > > +1 from me. > > While I completely understand Bob and Thomas wanting this for PyObjC and > ctypes, respectively, I don't want to rush this. And I don't think this > is going to suffer from being pushed off indefinitely since enough > people want this feature. If you need more time to consider how Java > handles it, then take it. You are BDFL for a reason; your gut feeling > tends be right in the end. I'd like it well enough for my own code, although I don't feel the need as keenly as others working on PyObjC or the like. Yet I'm more concerned that we get the right answer than that we get an answer now. > But if you decide not to wait and put in 2.4, I'm +1 on your syntax; as > I said before, your gut tends to be right. I'm generally found of the C#-style syntax, but I grant that its problems in interactive mode are awkward. Thus, it feels a bit like the least bad solution rather than a good solution. Jeremy
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