On Feb 6, 5:45 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:59:27 +0100, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > >> def run3( block ): > >> for _ in range( 3 ): > >> block() > > >> run3(): > >> normal_suite() > > >> Introduces new syntax; arbitrary functions can follow 'colon'. > > >> Maintains readability, meaning is consistent. > > >> Equivalent to: > > >> def run3( block ): > >> for _ in range( 3 ): > >> block() > > >> @run3 > >> def anonfunc(): > >> normal_suite() > > >> Simplification in cases in which decorators are use often. > > >This is non-sensical - how do you invoke anonfunc? They would all bind > >to the same name, run3. Or to no name as all, as your "spec" lacks that. > > As he said, the decorator version is the _equivalent_ to the syntax he > was proposing. The point isn't to decorate the function, so perhaps he > shouldn't have used decorator syntax, but instead: > > def anonfunc(): > normal_suite() > run3(anonfunc) > del anonfunc > > So it's not non-sensical. It's a request for a piece of syntax. > > > > >Besides, it's butt-ugly IMHO. But taste comes after proper definition... > > It's properly defined. Not that I'm endorsing this or anything. I'd > rather not see half-assed syntax proposals at all, even if they're super > great (and some of the syntax that's made it into Python is much worse > than this). > > Jean-Paul- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Yes. @run3( anonfunc ) runs -in-place-. Jean-Paul's was a closer equivalent. It's used for a piece of code that won't get called like with statements. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
