Greg Krohn greg at invalid.invalid
Thu Aug 5 23:36:11 EDT 2004

• Previous message (by thread): Poll - Vote here for "list-after-def" (was Decorator syntax)
• Next message (by thread): Poll - Vote here for "list-after-def" (was Decorator syntax)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Istvan Albert wrote:
> Paul McGuire wrote:
> > Please reconsider the "def f() [classmethod]:" construct.

I concur.

The @ construct is atrocious and *very* unpythonic. I would choose no 
changes at all over implementing the @ construct. list-after-def is 
much, much, *much* better.


Greg Krohn
(I feel more strongly about this than I did (do) about PEP 308.)

---

• Previous message (by thread): Poll - Vote here for "list-after-def" (was Decorator syntax)
• Next message (by thread): Poll - Vote here for "list-after-def" (was Decorator syntax)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list