Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes: > 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. Sense at last <wink>! > Two additional thoughts: ^^^ "No-one expects..." > 1) I'm not sure I like using the same syntax for classes; the use > cases are so different that using similar syntax only adds > confusion, and I think the use cases for classes are a lot weaker > than for methods. This is a marginal point, in my view. > 2) The syntax should also apply to regular functions. I wasn't aware that only applying it to methods had even been considered for the tiniest fraction of an instant. It would be painful to implement and a transparently bad idea. > 3) It needs to be crystal clear that the list of transformations is > applied at function/method definition time, not at class definition > time (which is later, after all the methods have been collected in > a namespace). Given 2), that the syntax works for functions, I think this follows. Besides, I can't think of a sane way of implementing the opposite... Cheers, mwh -- I would hereby duly point you at the website for the current pedal powered submarine world underwater speed record, except I've lost the URL. -- Callas, cam.misc
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