I
Istvan Albert
Paul said:> 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 <[email protected]>
AdSR <[email protected]>
Paul McGuire <[email protected]._bogus_.com>m
Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
C. Barnes <[email protected]>
Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com
Skip Montanaro skip at pobox.com
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com
Istvan Albert (e-mail address removed)
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.