I’ve always resisted changing this, but it keeps coming up, and in other cases we don’t restrict the grammar (except when there are real ambiguities). So maybe the SC can accept a PRP for this?

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 15:47 Ben Avrahami <avrahami.ben@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, decorators are a very powerful feature in python, but it's syntax is strangely restrictive.

decorator ::=  "@" dotted_name ["(" [argument_list [","]] ")"] NEWLINE

for 99% of cases this is not a hindrance, but sometimes we'd rather be able to use full expression syntax. consider the following example (using PyQt):

    # make 10 buttons
    buttons = [QPushButton(f'button #{i}') for i in range(10)]
    # for now we only want to bind an event to the first button
    def foo():
        ... # do whatever

in cases such as this, it would be useful to have any expression acceptable as a decorator.

In addition to other use cases such as chained function calling (@buttons_dict.get("foo"). clicked.connect), the restrictiveness of the decorator syntax seems like a strange oversight. Arbitrary expressions are already allowed in decorator lines as arguments, so allowing them as the called decorator shouldn't be too difficult.

Any thoughts on this?
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WOWD4P323DYDIGUQVWMESDWUG6QOW4MP/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
--Guido (mobile)