On 8/15/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the modified example
>
> @docstring
> @typechecker
> @constrain_values
> def foo(a: {'doc': "Frobnication count",
> 'type': Number,
> 'constrain_values': range(3, 9)},
> b: {'type': Number,
> # This can be only 4, 8 or 12
> 'constrain_values': [4, 8, 12]}) -> {'type': Number}
>
I've been keeping out of this - I haven't followed the discussions,
and I am certainly not up to speed on the various subtleties, but
*surely* there's no intention that a monstrosity like this would count
as a "normal" function definition in Py3K???!!!!
> I'm going to raise the bar for future ideas on this subject: any
> proposals must be able to address the following use cases:
[...]
> Proposals that do not address all of these will not be considered.
Can I suggest a further constraint - anything that results in the
definition of a simple 2-argument function not fitting on a single
source line is probably unworkable in practice?
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
