[Python-Dev] Re: decorators and 2.4

Bob Ippolito bob at redivi.com
Sat Jun 26 03:15:59 EDT 2004

On Jun 25, 2004, at 5:51 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:

> On Jun 25, 2004, at 3:52 PM, Brian L. wrote:
>> such a bad way. The brackets actually set off the decorators nicely.
>> Something like:
>> [decorators]
>> def func(args):
>>     pass
> +1
> IMHO, making decorators functions is a bad idea.  Decorators are 
> metadata about the function to which they refer.  Using the same 
> syntax for decorators as for functions conceptually weakens this 
> distinction and encourages misuse of decorators, even to the point of 
> potentially encouraging (or implying) side-effects as a result of 
> decoration.

Uh, the WHOLE POINT we want this is to have side-effects.  If it 
doesn't make the function act in a different way, it might as well live 
in the doc string or something.

The most wanted use cases are all function transformations, not the 
setting attributes on function objects.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040626/c5dd3bb1/smime.bin

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list