The syntax for decorators in the grammar is quite specific: decorator: '@' dotted_name [ '(' [arglist] ')' ] NEWLINE Decorators can be either a dotted name, or a dotted name followed by arguments. This disallows: @mapping['async'] # looking something up in a mapping @func(1, 2, 3).async # getting the attribute of the /result/ of a function call Obviously these restrictions haven't been too burdensome, as I've labored under them for 13+ years and didn't even notice until just now. But it set me to wondering. If it were me, perpetually lazy sod that I am, I'd have written the grammar as decorator: '@' expr NEWLINE and been done with it. So why don't decorators allow arbitrary expressions? The PEP discusses the syntax for decorators, but that whole debate only concerned itself with where the decorator goes relative to "def", and what funny punctuation might it use. It never says "decorators shouldn't permit arbitrary expressions because--". Nor is there any info on wiki page with the extensive summary of alternative syntax proposals. Anybody remember? I'm not proposing that we allow arbitrary expressions as decorators... well, I'm not doing that /yet/ at least. But like I said, the syntax has been this way for 13 years and I don't recall anybody complaining. //arry /p.s. I experimentally tried modifying the grammar for descriptors to allow arbitrary expressions. The syntax was fine but it crashed in ast_for_decorator(). When I updated that to match, it worked fine! The diff is short and mainly consists of deleted code.