Re: [Python-Dev] Re: decorators and 2.4
Jeff Bone:
That simple-minded and overly-literal interpretation may well be correct. PEP 318 does not intend to change the semantics or capabilities of the language in any way whatsoever. The only reason to add 318 is so that a particular idiom will be easier to understand (and perhaps more efficient). The other goals are really damage control. If the idiom becomes easy to use, it will get used more often. Sometimes, that will be good, as it will replace something more byzantine. It is true that we don't want to encourage certain types of coding, but they're already possible, and the consensus was not to ban them now. Discourage in a style guide, maybe, but not ban. The arguments about syntax are because we don't want the new and improved idiom to end up uglifying the rest of the language. Ideally, any change will remove more clutter than it creates, so adding new meaning to certain magic characters ... is risky. If we put restrictions on decorators, people may just keep using the current idiom -- and then we would have added the clutter for no gain at all. -jJ
"Jewett, Jim J" <jim.jewett@eds.com> writes:
I just want to point out that Guido has been basically silent ever since this discussion re-started and it has now degenerated into a mostly-philosophical debate. I suggest it might be worth waiting for him to respond before it spirals any further away from what was asked for :) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 12:45, David Abrahams wrote:
I doubt he will respond. I think Guido has decided what the semantics will be and is just waffling over what syntax to choose. /I'm/ waiting for Tim to respond, because he'll get a clear image on his BCR (BDFL Channel Receptor) a few days before Guido makes up his mind and posts his pronouncement. -Barry
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm now hoping that he goes for the list-before-def approach, since Phillip seems to have shown that it would then be possible to: a) get to use decorators b) write backwards compatible code (albeit with a little magic to do so) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan@email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
David Abrahams wrote:
As I said in the original email that re-opened this can of worms: Guido is undecided on the syntax - he writes "I'm seriously considering doing it Java-style", but adds that he is totally swamped for the next two weeks. I don't think the philosophical arguments about decorators are particularly useful at this point. It seems very likely that they will be in 2.4, in a form that Guido decides is least offensive to his aesthetic judgement. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
participants (6)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Barry Warsaw -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Bone -
Jewett, Jim J -
Nick Coghlan