TheFlyingDutchman schrieb: >> - Abstract Base Classes >> <URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/> >> > > I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ > things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and > static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. But I know all > such additions are vigorously defended by the most ardent users of > each language.
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows that, despite being the maintainer of a soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1] The decorator syntax was vigorously discussed. I personally don't mind the @-based syntax, but could live with anything else - because I like and often need the feature for it's capabilities. Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted.... Diez [1] http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/a9a52694148fc52c/28c9ee2e1c64cdde#28c9ee2e1c64cdde -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
