On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Mike Hansen <mhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jason Grout > <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: >> How about this slight change in syntax: >> >> @interact(update=False) >> def _(... > > If you wanted to do this, and still support the regular @interact > (with no parens) syntax, then you'll need to make a pretty > awkward/convoluted construction in order support both. > > As the functions parameters already affect how interact works, I don't > think an interact_update=False would be that surprising. >
+1 to this; Mike speaks from having a very strong sense for how decorators work in Python. Personally, I would prefer update=False. It would be easier to remember than interact_update, which is rather long. By the way, it's about time figure out how to specify more precisely layout information for controls. Any proposals for the syntax for this. I've cc'd Igor Tolkov, who once suggested something to me last summer (he did a Google-funded project on @interact last summer -- thanks Google!). William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
