PEP 318 - Function Modifier Syntax

Andrew Walkingshaw andrew-usenet at lexical.org.uk
Wed Jun 11 19:31:37 EDT 2003


In article <mailman.1055356522.25775.python-list at python.org>, Gerrit Holl wrote:
> Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
>> > I think "as" is a perfectly good keyword, and no other suggestion I've
>> > seen is better.  It reads well and it represents the underlying
>> > implementation fairly well.  And "as" is already (kind of) a keyword, so
>> > all the better.  It was an early suggestion, and a good one -- I don't
>> > know why people are working it over so much.
>> 
>> Because we haven't anything better to do? :)
>> 
>> Another option which comes to mind, assuming that these function
>> decorators work the way I think they do, is "applying":
>> 
>> def f(x,y,z) applying (decorator1, decorator2):
> 
> How about "def f() alteritaccordingto (decorator1, decorator2):"

To be honest, as long as the format chosen is relatively easy to
remember, type, and relatively clear in its meaning, it doesn't really
*matter* what's chosen. I'm in favour, marginally, of the def f(x,y,z)
[dec1, dec2]: syntax, but to be honest I'm fairly ambivalent. I suspect
that a compromise option such as "using" or "applying" may wind up being
a horse-designed-by-committee: a camel, which gives everyone the hump.

This is all just idle banter, anyway: I suspect the real action on this 
issue is over on python-dev!

- Andrew

-- 
Andrew Walkingshaw | andrew-usenet at lexical.org.uk





More information about the Python-list mailing list