Call for signatories for J2
shalabh at cafepy.com
Thu Aug 26 20:03:15 CEST 2004
Doug Holton wrote:
> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>> I also have a weak preference for 'per' over 'using', FWIW. The
>> shortness of 'per' is one virtue. Another is that, because it's
>> slightly obscure, it may be easier to indoctrinate users that
>> 'per...def' is the correct order, not 'def...per'. For me at least
>> it's 'obvious' that if 'using...def' works then so should
>> 'def...using', which of course it can't.
> Even in common English usage, "per" usually comes in the middle of a
> phrase, not the beginning, like "miles per hour" or "Changes were made
> to the manuscript per the author's instructions" (people would more
> commonly use the phrase "according to" rather than "per" there).
> None of those uses bare any resemblance to how decorators affect
> functions. "per:" by itself on a line is pretty much meaningless.
> Looks more like you misspelled pre.
As per meaning #3 of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary , per also
means 'according to'. In fact when I first saw the suggestion of 'per' I
could immediately make sense of it in that context. I'm still debating
whether to vote for or abstain, since I'm not that fond of 'using'.
More information about the Python-list