Michael Sparks wrote:

Nick Coghlan> [make block optional for one decorator ?] Barry Warsaw> [Better, but requires keyword, and hence (?) __future__ ]

As previously noted the arguments against the length of the decorator in the single case, I view as advantages when showing code to new users or maintainers.

If you allow the keyword and the single decorator on the same line, this argument comes down to "how long is the keyword?"

...

...

try: a = 3 ... except Exception, x: ... print "Error", x

Nobody seems to have a problem typing "try:" again and again. I'm not sure why "decorate:" is receiving such pessimistic scrutiny. But then, I wasn't hanging about when try/except came into being--perhaps it had similar difficulties.

As for whether it's the right keyword or not, I'm not sure I'm qualified to say, but decorators seem much more like declarations of function properties in all the use cases I've seen.

The proposal, in effect, creates a declarative suite as opposed to the more traditional imperative suite. Perhaps "declare:" would be more appropriate (but give your brain a week to mull it over ;).

More seriously though, if there is interest I'll see what I can do about cleaning up the patch to resolve the scoping issue.

I'm certainly interested; thanks for churning out an implementation. Robert Brewer MIS Amor Ministries fumanchu@amor.org