[Python-3000] yes to class decorators

[Josiah Carlson]

"Steven Bethard" <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, tomer filiba <tomerfiliba at gmail.com> wrote:
> > i understand there's a green light for class decorators in py3k,
> > so i wanted to give the issue a slight push.
> 
> "Steven Bethard" <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, most of the arguments against PEP 359 were along the lines of,
> > "well you can do that with a metaclass already, so we don't really
> > need any new syntax", but you may be able to get around those
> > arguments because the decorator syntax already exists.
> 
> On 11/15/06, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
> > Here's a post from Guido in response to Phillip and Greg in which he
> > says more or less; someone write a PEP so that we can get them
> > into 2.6 and Py3k...
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-March/062942.html
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> > If Tomer (or someone else) writes a PEP, I don't see why (the
> > previously overlooked) class decorators shouldn't make it into
> > 2.6 and 3.0 .
> 
> So the purpose of this thread then is to write the PEP?  If so, my
> comments about the use cases are still valid.  If they weren't
> convincing use cases before, they're not likely to be convincing use
> cases for a PEP.

Except that they *were* convincing, which is why Guido green lighted it
for 2.6 and 3.0 .  One of the purposes of the PEP, like all other PEPs,
is so that in the future when someone comes up with some so-called
"enhancement" they can't point to a previous feature addition (like
class decorators) and say, "but _they_ didn't have to write a PEP to get
the feature in, why do _I_?"


> Or was there another purpose of the thread?

I believe that Tomer just wanted to remind people that class decorators
are slated for 2.6 and 3.0 if there was a PEP, and perhaps that he is
encouraging someone to write one.

 - Josiah