At 02:26 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote: >But in slightly longer examples, I think that the looks are >significantly improved... > > class Foo(base1, base2, *otherbases, metaclass=mymeta, > private=True, **kwargs): > ... > >vs. > > @@(metaclass=mymeta, private=True, **kwargs) > class Foo(base1, base2, *otherbases): > ...
I was confused for a minute, because I thought you were contradicting yourself, because it was so obvious that the *first* one looks better. It took me a while to realize you're saying you like the bottom one better, whereas to me it's like "ugh". If it was a choice between using that syntax and not having the feature, I'd frankly choose not having the feature, as I'm making do right now with magic functions in the class body to do this sort of thing. They look a heckuva lot better than the @@ thing. Fortunately, I think Guido has all but Pronounced on the first syntax, and IMO with good reason. The symmetry with normal function syntax is just too good to pass up. _______________________________________________ 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
