[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators

[Guido van Rossum]

[Phillip]
> Does this mean that the C#-style syntax has a chance if it's got a 
> __future__?  :)

I don't see how that would change the arguments against it.

> Also, you might want to define "superior" in order to avoid
> re-opening the floodgates of syntax argument.

No, but I suggest that the proponents of syntax alternatives will have
to agree amongst themselves on a single alternative that they can
present to me.

> With regard to the PEP, I thought there were two volunteers who
> mentioned an intent to work on it in the past week; if they are not
> still doing so, I'd be happy to at least add the issues with "def
> decorator functionname()" that I remember (visual confusion for
> decorators w/arguments, tool confusion for existing tools).

Please do (or coordinate with Skip who seems to have attracted this
volunteer position).

[Michael]
> Do you want justifications, too?  :-)

That's up to you. :-)

> I would beg of you to not give the idea that you or anyone else is
> going to be counting votes on this at some point.

Python is not a democracy.  I can't be swayed by votes, only by good
arguments.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)