Aug. 2, 2004
5:30 p.m.
At 01:14 PM 8/2/04 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote:
I would think the fact that the '[decorators]' syntax can be implemented in pure Python (no changes to the interpreter) for existing Python versions would give more weight to it. That is, if someone wants to implement a decorator that's forwards and backwards-compatible, that's possible with the list syntax, but not the @ syntax.
.. but that also means you can still make the [decorators] syntax work in 2.4, if you want compatibility or don't like @syntax.
But then why not just make that the default syntax, so that no migration is necessary, and only one syntax has to be learned/explained to people?