On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 06:08, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mark, is it possible that this changed between the first and final versions of the decorator patch? The SF report doesn't list any of the older versions...
No, it has always been this way round. In fact test_order was inherited from Guido's original version of test_decorators.py (from patch #926860) where it read: def test_order(self): class C(object): [funcattrs(abc=1), staticmethod] def foo(): return 42 # This wouldn't work if staticmethod was called first self.assertEqual(C.foo(), 42) self.assertEqual(C().foo(), 42) (i.e. identical to the current version except for the change in syntax). In fact I relied on the fact that this test passed to convince me I had the order right! But I should have spotted the inconsistency between that and the documentation that I wrote for the reference manual. I'll do a patch to fix the order and the corresponding tests. While I'm at it, do we want to drop support for multiple decorators on a single line? Nobody has spoken up for it, and in fact forcing one-per-line would simplify the grammar (as well as making it easier for toy parsers to find decorators). Mark