[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Aug 5 18:52:28 CEST 2004
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Aug 5 18:52:28 CEST 2004
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 09:36 AM 8/5/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >I also want to find out about >superior syntax proposals (from __future__ import decorators might be >acceptable). Does this mean that the C#-style syntax has a chance if it's got a __future__? :) Also, you might want to define "superior" in order to avoid re-opening the floodgates of syntax argument. With regard to the PEP, I thought there were two volunteers who mentioned an intent to work on it in the past week; if they are not still doing so, I'd be happy to at least add the issues with "def decorator functionname()" that I remember (visual confusion for decorators w/arguments, tool confusion for existing tools).
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list