[Python-Dev] Pep 318 - new syntax (esp for wrappers)

[Bob Ippolito]

On Mar 3, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Jewett, Jim J wrote:

> Bob Ippolito
>
>> ANYTHING that transforms a function in
>> ANY way can be represented by this decorator syntax.
>
> "can" != "should".

Eh.  "can" doesn't IMPLY "should", but that doesn't mean they're always 
inequal.  In other words, I can't think of an 
explicit-function-transform that I would want to represent in a 
different way, unless I wanted a copy of the original hanging around.

> The transforms *can* be represented in the current
> syntax, but we agree that the current idiom should
> be improved.  Different changes may be preferable
> for other patterns.

Like what?

>>> (2)  Wrappers are not essential to understanding
>>> functions, and should not pretend to be. ...
>
>>> In most languages, classifiers are always relevant.
>>> {int, public, synchronized, ...}
>
>> [In python, these wrappers] are not essential to
>> understanding how to make your own functions or methods,
>
> exactly.
>
>> Since when do newbies read the "language lawyer" documentation?
>
> Depends on the newbie, and the definition of "language lawyer".

from http://www.python.org/doc/2.3.3/

	Language Reference
	(for language lawyers)

It's a 'little' dense for a newbie.

> Most programmers want a manual or reference when they're first
> learning, and will turn to it when they get confused.  (Hey,
> I got a syntax error!  What's up?  Hey, this function just
> changed its signature!)  Then they'll see the full syntax.

And they'll also see that they haven't needed it yet, and it's 
presumably not in the beginner tutorials, so they don't need to learn 
it just yet.  I don't see how it's any different than say, using 
__radd__, the yield keyword, the exec statement, or some of the more 
advanced exception handling constructs.  From what I've seen, beginners 
don't really even notice that these things exist, and that's good.  I 
don't see extended function syntax being any different.

>> No tutorials or existing code ... use this syntax yet, so newbies
>> are obviously not going to see it.
>
> There will always be more newbies -- even a year after this
> enters the language.

That doesn't mean the tutorials and code that newbies are going to be 
looking at are going to start using this syntax a year from when this 
enters the language.

-bob