Alternative decorator syntax decision

threeseas timrueAT at mindspringDOT.com
Sat Aug 21 20:13:43 CEST 2004


Doug Holton wrote:
>> Exactly. From this standpoint, the list on the wiki should be filtered 
>> to something that
>>   1) doesn't have the declaration in the body of the function
>>   2) doesn't have the declaration following the parameters
>>
>> 1) rules out D1 D2 E1 E2
>> 2) rules out C1 C2 C3 C4 E3
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  C1 was the clear community favorite for months and 
> still has many supporters.  And putting the decorator at the top of the 
> function had many supporters in the poll last week.
> 
>> With the voting going the way it currently is J2 is winning anyway, 
> 
> 
> J2 is winning because it was actively discussed right here on this 
> newsgroup this past week.  When I did a poll last week, E1 had just been 
> actively discussed and it gained a lot of support.  Next week who knows 
> what will be the current flavor?

a definable syntax is the solution direction, even if only as a stepping 
stone to letting the "standard" simply come about the old fashon way... 
popular use.

This newsgroup is far to python user limited, and I'd imagine the 
mailing list is not much better, and IRC....

what is the estimate user/coder count regarding python? (perhaps what 
would be more accurate would be coding hours over user/coder count)
where any changes or new things should keep the sum low.

Python promotes ease of use in regards to power/functionality level.

shrug...

not that I really care, but perhaps its a bit more objective.



More information about the Python-list mailing list