Jean-Paul Calderone schrieb: > 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).
Yeah, I missed somehow that the decorator doesn't actually return anything. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
