RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 9 05:24:47 EDT 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154539.html

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Eric V. Smith]
>>
>> > there is at least one place
>>
>> > where the grammar does forbid you from doing something that would
>> > otherwise make be allowable: decorators.
>
>
> [Greg Ewing]
>>
>>  And that was a controversial issue at the time. I don't remember
>>
>> there being much of an objective argument for the restriction --
>> it was more or less a matter of "Guido wanted it that way".
>
>
> Start here:
>
>     https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046711.html

There is also an open issue about removing that restriction:
https://bugs.python.org/issue19660

https://bugs.python.org/file32745/decorator-syntax.patch removes a
test that raises SyntaxError for the following snippet:

@x[3]
def foo():
    pass

--Berker

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154539.html below:

[Python-Dev] Call for prudence about PEP-572