>
Please stop arguing.
As far as I'm concerned, we weren't. :)
> No, It is because tulles aren’t callable. So it CANNOT have a meaning.
True, I realized that only after I sent it.
> I didn't really follow the discussions on the PEP that relaxed the
> rules, but I'd say that the current (restrictive) rules were there to
> avoid people using "weird" stuff as decorators. The relaxation allows
> more flexibility, but at the cost of allowing people to do weird
> stuff. So let's just tell people not to do that - there's not much
> point in trying to define a *different* rule for "useful but not weird
> stuff" IMO.
> The consistent rule is that the grammar doesn’t judge what users want to do with the language.
Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly. I am in no way saying that this shouldn't be allowed—on the contrary: I'm the first to say that
the grammar shouldn't judge what users want to do with the language (Python's flexibility is one of the main aspects I love about it, if not *the* main aspect). I want that to be 100% valid Python. I was just saying, from a code style perspective, it would be sensible to always parenthesize constructs of the sort:
@(a + b * c**d % e)
def func(): pass