Robert Brewer wrote:
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
>> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > talking on python-dev, no more syntax proposals. The community
>> > should set a goal date (Sept. 1 seems good) and just choose a
>> > bloody alternative.
>> Sept 1 is way, way, way too late. 2.4a3 is scheduled for September 2.
>> I'd _hope_ that by the end of this week we can have the proposed
>> alternative(s) presented to Guido - this gives him the weekend
> Given the dearth of heated debate over the proposal, I expect to call
> for signatories within the next 24 hours or so. I know Michael Sparks
> is working on patching against CVS (instead of alpha 2), minor grammar
> improvements, and such--not sure how far along that is or if he feels
> it could wait for revisions after the decision is made...?
The I have a patch working against current CVS, and all the tests bar
one pass. (Specifically test_inspect)
The following examples are now legal:
def myGenerator(self, max=10):
for foo in xrange(0,10):
Order of evaluation of decorators is the same as for @pies and the
short form (second version) only allows for just one decorator in
that position. Still hunting down what's causing the inspect to not
function as expected fail. (I'm pretty sure of where to look though :)
British Broadcasting Corporation, Research and Development
Kingswood Warren, Surrey KT20 6NP
This message (and any attachments) may contain personal views
which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.