RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 10 11:30:59 EST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043028.html

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> In any case, *I* would prefer not to let the semantics require
> anything, and to make this just a (preferred) shorthand for applying
> arbitrary transformations to something that starts out as a function.

All right, I've done my duty as the Loyal Opposition ;-), and I don't
care enough to keep arguing.

That still leaves the question for what *is* allowed within the
brackets.  AFAICT, the options are

* A single identifier (which must be a callable)

* Comma-separated list of identifiers (which must be callables)

* Arbitrary expression (which must produce a sequence of callables)

BTW, have we agreed on the order in which decorators will be applied?
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Do not taunt happy fun for loops. Do not change lists you are looping over."
--Remco Gerlich, comp.lang.python

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043028.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 318 - generality of list; restrictions on elements