At 10:36 PM 3/15/05 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>I discussed this approach with Guido in private e-mail a few months back >>during discussion about an article I was writing for DDJ about >>decorators. We also discussed something very similar to 'update_meta()', >>but never settled on a name. Originally he wanted me to PEP the whole >>thing, but he wanted it to include optional type declaration info, so you >>can probably see why I haven't done anything on that yet. :) >>However, if we can define a __signature__ format that allows for type >>declaration, I imagine there'd be little problem with moving forward on it. > >But one of the reasons for providing 'update_meta' is so that additional >metadata (like __signature__) can later be added transparently. Yes, exactly. >Does deciding whether or not to supply the function really need to be >dependent on whether or not a format for __signature__ has been chosen? Um, no. Why would you think that?
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