RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 31 17:01:32 EST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043846.html

On Mar 31, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Simon Percivall wrote:

> On 2004-03-31, at 23.01, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>> But is the special case of decorated functions/methods really worth 
>>> adding a
>>> special case to current syntax rules?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> But is it really wise to add the special syntax required to make your 
> work easier (or possible) by overloading a currently perfectly valid 
> (if non-sensical) statement? It's one thing that you really, really 
> want a better decorator syntax; it's another thing completely that the 
> new syntax is an overloaded and restricted list. That's just plain 
> wrong for many reasons argued earlier.

I've stated many times that my preferences is the currently invalid:

def foo(args)[decorators]:
	pass

.. but I'll reluctantly accept Guido's suggestion if that's the only 
thing that's going to happen.

-bob

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043846.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 318: Decorators last before colon