[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Switch back to named functions, since the Ellipsis version degenerated badly (original) (raw)
Jim Jewett jimjjewett at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 17:37:34 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Refactor importlib to make it easier to re-implement in C.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposing an alternative to PEP 410
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, nick.coghlan <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
+ in x = weakref.ref(target, reportdestruction) + def reportdestruction(obj): print("{} is being destroyed".format(obj))
+If the repetition of the name seems especially annoying, then a throwaway +name like
fcan be used instead::
+ in x = weakref.ref(target, f) + def f(obj): + print("{} is being destroyed".format(obj))
I still feel that the helper function (or class) is subordinate, and should be indented. Thinking of "in ..." as a decorator helps, but makes it seem that the helper function is the important part (which it sometimes is...)
I understand that adding a colon and indent has its own problems, but ... I'm not certain this is better, and I am certain that the desire for indentation is strong enough to at least justify discussion in the PEP.
-jJ
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Refactor importlib to make it easier to re-implement in C.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposing an alternative to PEP 410
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]