whitespace

pep-0318.txt

@@ -9,16 +9,16 @@ Content-Type: text/x-rst
 Created: 05-Jun-2003
 Python-Version: 2.4
 Post-History: 09-Jun-2003, 10-Jun-2003, 27-Feb-2004, 23-Mar-2004, 30-Aug-2004,
-2-Sep-2004
+              2-Sep-2004
 
 
 WarningWarningWarning
 =====================
 
 This document is meant to describe the decorator syntax and the
-process that resulted in the decisions that were made.  It does not 
-attempt to cover the huge number of potential alternative syntaxes, 
-nor is it an attempt to exhaustively list all the positives and 
+process that resulted in the decisions that were made.  It does not
+attempt to cover the huge number of potential alternative syntaxes,
+nor is it an attempt to exhaustively list all the positives and
 negatives of each form.
 
 
@@ -144,12 +144,12 @@ The discussion continued on and off on python-dev from February
 2002 through July 2004.  Hundreds and hundreds of posts were made,
 with people proposing many possible syntax variations.  Guido took
 a list of proposals to `EuroPython 2004`_, where a discussion took
-place.  Subsequent to this, he decided that we'd have the `Java-style`_ 
-@decorator syntax, and this appeared for the first time in 2.4a2.  
-Barry Warsaw named this the 'pie-decorator' syntax, in honor of the 
-Pie-thon Parrot shootout which was occured around the same time as 
-the decorator syntax, and because the @ looks a little like a pie.  
-Guido `outlined his case`_ on Python-dev, including `this piece`_ 
+place.  Subsequent to this, he decided that we'd have the `Java-style`_
+@decorator syntax, and this appeared for the first time in 2.4a2.
+Barry Warsaw named this the 'pie-decorator' syntax, in honor of the
+Pie-thon Parrot shootout which was occured around the same time as
+the decorator syntax, and because the @ looks a little like a pie.
+Guido `outlined his case`_ on Python-dev, including `this piece`_
 on some of the (many) rejected forms.
 
 .. _EuroPython 2004:
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ syntax used in 2.4a2::
 
 There have been a number of objections raised to this location -- the
 primary one is that it's the first real Python case where a line of code
-has an effect on a following line.  The syntax available in 2.4a3 
+has an effect on a following line.  The syntax available in 2.4a3
 requires one decorator per line (in a2, multiple decorators could be
 specified on the same line).
 
@@ -446,9 +446,9 @@ Syntax forms
     def foo(arg1,arg2):
         pass
 
-    [accepts(int,int), returns(float)] 
-    def bar(low,high): 
-        pass 
+    [accepts(int,int), returns(float)]
+    def bar(low,high):
+        pass
 
   The major objection to the list syntax is that it's currently
   meaningful (when used in the form before the method).  It's also
@@ -461,8 +461,8 @@ Syntax forms
         pass
 
     <accepts(int,int), returns(float)>
-    def bar(low,high): 
-        pass 
+    def bar(low,high):
+        pass
 
   None of these alternatives gained much traction. The alternatives
   which involve square brackets only serve to make it obvious that the
@@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ Syntax forms
   .. _the full response:
      http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048518.html
 
-* Other forms 
+* Other forms
 
   There are plenty of other variants and proposals on `the wiki page`_.
 
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ Current Implementation, History
 ===============================
 
 Guido asked for a volunteer to implement his preferred syntax, and Mark
-Russell stepped up and posted a `patch`_ to SF.  This new syntax was 
+Russell stepped up and posted a `patch`_ to SF.  This new syntax was
 available in 2.4a2. ::
 
     @dec2
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ Sparks produced `a patch`_.
 
 .. _detailed proposal:
     http://www.aminus.org/rbre/python/pydec.html
-.. _a patch: 
+.. _a patch:
     http://www.python.org/sf/1013835
 
 As noted previously, Guido rejected this form, outlining his problems
@@ -732,7 +732,7 @@ use.
        def mymethod(f):
            ...
 
-4. Enforce function argument and return types.  Note that this 
+4. Enforce function argument and return types.  Note that this
    copies the func_name attribute from the old to the new function.
    func_name was made writable in Python 2.4a3::
 
@@ -799,13 +799,13 @@ Open Issues
    into the language at a future point.  Guido expressed skepticism about
    the concept, but various people have made some `strong arguments`_
    (search for ``PEP 318 -- posting draft``) on their behalf in
-   ``python-dev``.  It's exceedingly unlikely that class decorators 
+   ``python-dev``.  It's exceedingly unlikely that class decorators
    will be in Python 2.4.
 
    .. _strong arguments:
       http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/thread.html
 
-2. The choice of the ``@`` character will be re-examined before 
+2. The choice of the ``@`` character will be re-examined before
    Python 2.4b1.
 
 Copyright