At 06:27 PM 3/28/04 -0500, Robert Mollitor wrote: > >> Robert> ... there is a trivial workaround if we restrict the transformer >> Robert> list to identifiers: >> >> Robert> sync = synchronized(lockattr="baz") >> Robert> def func [sync] (arg1, arg2): >> Robert> pass >> >>I think restricting decorators to only be identifiers would be shortsighted. >>I can understand having to create workarounds for unforseen situations, but >>it's clear at this point in the discussion that decorator functions might >>need to accept parameters. Why not let them? > >It is easier to expand a public grammar than it is to shrink one. And it's better to cripple a syntax extension in order to justify making a second syntax extension that's a crufty workaround for the crippling? That doesn't make any sense to me.
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