Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> writes:
to justify the language change. FWIW, It isn't to me. The new syntax is yet another rule that people have to know to understand Python code they read. That's OK if it produces enough value to justify the burden. I question whether that's the case here.
Perhsps the difficulty in pickling an acceptable syntax should be taken as a warning sign that there's a problem with the feature.
I just want to be clear that I know implementing my proposal involves an ugly hack, and I'm not fond of it. Nonetheless, I think it's important. I made the proposal in response to exactly the same instinct that Jim is reflecting here. If people really need a prefix syntax for decorators it would be best to at least _start_ with an implementation that doesn't involve core language changes, because the whole area looks quite perilous from a language design point of view. I'm saying without any desire to change Guido's mind about '@', but just to explain the reasons that I brought up the idea in the first place. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com