At 01:14 AM 8/3/04 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 10:40, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
@decorator won? When did that happen?
First I heard about it was when I saw Anthony's checkin messages. Maybe it was throwing that pie that inspired Guido -- an '@' does kind of look like a pie. I think Anthony's checkin message was accurate enough though -- it's the syntax everyone can hate equally. But I'm glad /something/ made it in! print>>-set-the-precedent-ly y'rs, -Barry
Hey, I was just going off Guido's decision (in email - looking back, it wasn't cc'd to python-dev, which probably explains the lack of 400 followups <wink>)
Channelling the BDFL, I think the idea was to put it in 2.4a2, and see how it works for people. If it turns out that it's really really really hated, we can try something else in a3. Guido can of course follow up to this (hint hint) and give his own answers.
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.