From: Edward K. Ream

The "mandate" for this post is the following from GvR:

...

If good arguments against @ are presented it may be removed in 2.4b1 (that was always the plan but apparently not publicized).

So I would like seriously to consider whether removing '@' might be a good idea.

Note: my major concern with pep 318 has always been with syntax. I am not interested or qualified to discuss whether annotation in general is a good idea...

One point here. To get the "@" syntax removed, you will (should) need to *either* convince everyone who dislikes the "@" syntax to back a single alternative syntax (experience shows that this is unlikely in the extreme) *or* argue that the whole decorator feature be removed. You can't do the latter without discussing semantics and "whether annotation in general is a good idea". Please do not mislead people into thinking that a discussion of syntax alone is of any value, *unless* there is a willingness on the part of those against the "@" syntax to compromise on a single alternative. Semantics is a different matter - I've not heard any strong arguments against the semantics of decorators. And process is a different matter again - but that's for a different posting (which I may well not make...) Paul. __________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. __________________________________________________________________________