Hi All,
This is my first post to python-dev so I will briefly introduce myself: My
name is Rob Cliffe and I am a commercial programmer living in London, UK. I
have some 30 years of programming experience but have only been using Python
for a couple of years.
First I want to say what a
Crossposting to Python-ideas,
I asked for the same change to the grammar a couple months back on
python-ideas.
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-February/thread.html#2787
I'm all for it, but you'll have to convince Guido that this won't
result in confusing to read code. My
On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:15 , Rob Cliffe wrote:
@Identity(DecoList[0])# THIS WORKS
def foo():
pass
For what it's worth, you don't need an id function, you can simply write
@itemgetter(0)(decorators)
def foo():
'whatever'
or
@decorators.__getitem__(0)
def foo():
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but
pointless; it doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to
do it in a slightly convoluted (unPythonesque) way. So please,
Guido, will you reconsider?
Indeed, it's a silly
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM, James Y Knightf...@fuhm.net wrote:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but pointless; it
doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to do it in a slightly
convoluted (unPythonesque) way.
Erik Bray wrote:
I think Guido may have a point about not allowing any arbitrary
expression. But I do think that if it allows calls, it should also at
least support the itemgetter syntax, for which there seems to be a
demonstrable use case. But that's just adding on another special
case, so it
James Y Knight wrote:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but
pointless; it doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to do
it in a slightly convoluted (unPythonesque) way. So please, Guido,
will you reconsider?
