Poll - Vote here for "list-after-def" (was Decorator syntax)

Istvan Albert ialbert at mailblocks.com
Fri Aug 6 04:39:19 CEST 2004


Paul McGuire wrote:

 > Please reconsider the "def f() [classmethod]:" construct.  Instead of
 > invoking a special punctuation character, it uses context and placement,
 > with familiar old []'s, to infuse the declaration of a function with special
 > characteristics.  If this causes def lines to run longer than one line,
 > perhaps the same rule that allows an unmatched "(" to carry over multiple
 > lines without requiring "\" continuation markers could be used for unmatched
 > "["s, as in:
 >
 > def f() [ staticmethod,
 >     synchronized,
 >     alphabetized,
 >     supersized,
 >     returns('d') ]:

Well said!

Reading the posts here and in the python-dev I've counted
the following votes for it (I'm sure that there were a lot
more but it is awfully hard to keep up with the posts
on the topic).

Voting for the "list-after-def" syntax as shown above:

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com>
AdSR <artur_spruce at yahoo.com>
Paul McGuire <ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com>m
Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
C. Barnes <connellybarnes at yahoo.com>
Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com
Skip Montanaro skip at pobox.com
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com
Istvan Albert ialbert at mailblocks.com

I have the feeling that this always was and still is
the favorite.

Ladies and Gents, start your engines and rally around
this syntax (if you prefer it of course) so that there
is evidence that it should be taken as a serious candidate.

Istvan.




More information about the Python-list mailing list