Josiah Carlson wrote:
An option if you want to get all of the base representations available
is a prefix notation that is similar to what already exists. I'm not
advocating it (because I also think its crap), but the following fixes
the problems with your postfix notation, and is explicit about ba
<
Yep, documentation and doctests (etc) are useful.
>>but I've seen that lots of people have already discussed such
topic).<<
>Discussion of the @ decorator syntax is a moot point.<
I know, I noticed that... Still, only few things are fixed in stone
:-]
>Think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bearophile) wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comments and answers, and sorry for my answering
> delay...
>
> Josiah Carlson:
>
> >Decorators can do this without additional syntax. Think @accepts and
> @returns.<
>
> The purpose of those pre-post is to write something simile and
Thank you for the comments and answers, and sorry for my answering
delay...
Josiah Carlson:
>Decorators can do this without additional syntax. Think @accepts and
@returns.<
The purpose of those pre-post is to write something simile and very
*clean* that states what inputs and outputs must be. Th
