[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators

[Guido van Rossum]

> At 10:14 AM 8/5/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >[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.
> 
> I thought the primary argument against it was that it changes the meaning 
> of (potentially existing) Python code, and that you had rejected the "hard 
> to learn" argument on the basis that people learn by pattern-matching 
> rather than principle.

No, the reason I decided to drop that was was the ambiguity in
people's heads.

> I guess this is another reason to update the PEP...  :)

Indeed.

> >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.
> 
> I think that will pretty much guarantee that it's either @ or
> nothing: it appears that the two biggest (or at least most vocal)
> camps are:
> 
> 1. people who want a "simpler" syntax that doesn't support arguments (who 
> seem to mostly favor 'def classmethod foo()')

Tough beans.  They should have a look at how decorators are used in C#
and Java 1.5.

> 2. people who think that decorators without arguments are pointless, and 
> don't agree amongst themselves on the proper syntax, but don't necessarily 
> care that much as long as there *is* one.  (But there may be a slight 
> leaning towards either of the C#-inspired variants.)

So they should defend @ because it's there.

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