> I would like to focus this > thread to, specifically, if *this syntax* should become part of Python. Well, you get my +1, but I also want to protest that I think you may have rigged the vote. As you say, > It is already clear the the idea of function/method/class decoration > is worthy. Your reason for voting on just this syntax is: > I propose that we just go with the syntax we *already have an > implementation for*. I don't see anything wrong with it, I believe it > is the most popular, and I personally don't like new keywords. If getting an implementation were a problem, that would be convicing, but there have been volunteers to implement whatever syntax is chosen. I think the choice of syntax should be based on which syntax is better, not which happened to be implemented in the proof-of-concept. So I'll second Barry's call: > It's probably time to ask the BDFL for a pronouncement on the PEP. Oh, and by the way... I LIKE the syntax as implemented, although I still have a nagging desire for a keyword. -- Michael Chermside
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