Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy):

a. def foo (bar) [baz]: b. def foo (bar) as baz: c. def [baz] foo (bar):

Note that c. is like Quixote

d. def baz foo (bar): e. def foo [baz] (bar):

(1b) is the most visually pleasing, but the lack of syntax means that the decorator doesn't stand out as well as (a). However, it's simple to syntax-colour 'as', so that's close to a non-issue.

(1a) seems to be the most understandable, and is quite visually pleasing - the decorator is obviously special, but feels more like it's an explanatory note.

You left out f. def foo (bar) mod [baz]: pass The current patch is not really using a list, it is using magic characters "[" and "]". Given that, it could as easily use magic characters "mod [" and "]" Option 1.f. still has all the syntax-coloring advantages of 1.a., but makes it more obvious that the "mod [baz]" is truly an optional annotation. ("as" is the shortest suggestion for "mod", but not the only one. Also suggested are many variations on "transformed_by", "modified_by", "decorators", "providing", "extended_by", etc.) -jJ