R
Richard Hanson
Seen on in message-IDs
<[email protected]> and
Allow me to expand just a bit on the bullet immediately above
from Skip's list of pros for his proposal:
* It looks like the standard "backwards-'F'" block shape
which, for example, try-except, try-finally, and if-else
already use.
(I think this point had been mentioned, prior, and I apologize
that I don't have that post at hand. Also, Skip is probably
alluding to my very point.)
I'm a relative newbie to Python (and only a hobbyist as I've been
retired for almost two decades). I discovered Python only a few
years ago. Like many, I don't have all that much time or energy
or both to devote to active learning of Python, and how the
herein quoted proposal fits my brain may mirror a not
insignificant minority of the Python-using community.
I hadn't even heard of the decorator concept (as Python renders
it) until discussion about such cropped up on pydev (and here)
over the last while (last year?) or so. I soon grokked what they
were about. And -- I seemed to find no problem whatsoever with
the 2.4a2 prefix @deco form.
Yet, opposition from much-more-learned-than-me folks made me stop
and think. When Guido himself recently opened the door
just-a-crack (on pydev) to another decorator-form *if* the
community could come up with *one* (he may have said two...?)
alternative(s) which were persuasive to him, I sat up.
While I trust the developers, and particularly Guido (I have no
rational argument to support such religious veneration <wink>),
to resolve this in a fine manner, I would like to say the
alternative quoted above fits my newbie-but-not-too-dumb
brain just as smoothly as the currently implemented, prefix @deco
form. It may even be smoother for "newer" newbies.
As I pondered the visual appearance of the above quoted
"backwards-'F'" form of decorated functions, the common
try-except, try-finally, and if-else block-forms came to mind,
and I thought: No problem. Decorated functions (or, perhaps,
decorated some other things) are just another one of the
"backwards-'F'" visual wetware shape-templates (the other common
Python shape-template being the "backwards-and-upside-down-'L'")
for my brain to pattern-recognize.
Therefore, for me, the backwards-F form is not a negative. (And
better backwards-F forms may yet evolve.) I recognize, however,
that other considerations may well still outweigh the "shape"
argument.
---
Having said all that, I'll add that I'm hardly qualified to
comment at all on the Shape Of Things To Come, and I'll
happily and gratefully use any decorator form (if I figure out
Python well enough to use them <wink>). I just couldn't resist
throwing in my own thoughts on the topic (as it appears we're
going for the All-Time Longest Topic Ever Award <very big wink>).
(I haven't learned the <x.x wink> syntax, yet... )
brain-oriented-visually-y'rs,
Richard
<[email protected]> and
Allow me to expand just a bit on the bullet immediately above
from Skip's list of pros for his proposal:
* It looks like the standard "backwards-'F'" block shape
which, for example, try-except, try-finally, and if-else
already use.
(I think this point had been mentioned, prior, and I apologize
that I don't have that post at hand. Also, Skip is probably
alluding to my very point.)
I'm a relative newbie to Python (and only a hobbyist as I've been
retired for almost two decades). I discovered Python only a few
years ago. Like many, I don't have all that much time or energy
or both to devote to active learning of Python, and how the
herein quoted proposal fits my brain may mirror a not
insignificant minority of the Python-using community.
I hadn't even heard of the decorator concept (as Python renders
it) until discussion about such cropped up on pydev (and here)
over the last while (last year?) or so. I soon grokked what they
were about. And -- I seemed to find no problem whatsoever with
the 2.4a2 prefix @deco form.
Yet, opposition from much-more-learned-than-me folks made me stop
and think. When Guido himself recently opened the door
just-a-crack (on pydev) to another decorator-form *if* the
community could come up with *one* (he may have said two...?)
alternative(s) which were persuasive to him, I sat up.
While I trust the developers, and particularly Guido (I have no
rational argument to support such religious veneration <wink>),
to resolve this in a fine manner, I would like to say the
alternative quoted above fits my newbie-but-not-too-dumb
brain just as smoothly as the currently implemented, prefix @deco
form. It may even be smoother for "newer" newbies.
As I pondered the visual appearance of the above quoted
"backwards-'F'" form of decorated functions, the common
try-except, try-finally, and if-else block-forms came to mind,
and I thought: No problem. Decorated functions (or, perhaps,
decorated some other things) are just another one of the
"backwards-'F'" visual wetware shape-templates (the other common
Python shape-template being the "backwards-and-upside-down-'L'")
for my brain to pattern-recognize.
Therefore, for me, the backwards-F form is not a negative. (And
better backwards-F forms may yet evolve.) I recognize, however,
that other considerations may well still outweigh the "shape"
argument.
---
Having said all that, I'll add that I'm hardly qualified to
comment at all on the Shape Of Things To Come
, and I'llhappily and gratefully use any decorator form (if I figure out
Python well enough to use them <wink>). I just couldn't resist
throwing in my own thoughts on the topic (as it appears we're
going for the All-Time Longest Topic Ever Award <very big wink>).
(I haven't learned the <x.x wink> syntax, yet...
)brain-oriented-visually-y'rs,
Richard