Call for signatories for J2
peter at engcorp.com
Mon Aug 30 21:40:41 CEST 2004
> There is some other syntactical aim here that I wouldn't call "sugar". Once
> again, in the context of "decorators", we might need a new word to express
> what the intention is here.
> If a core argument in favor is to shortcut programmer input, I think it
> should be expressed as an unadorned shortcut. And think @ expresses the
> intent, in this respect more baldly and clearly.
It looked a whole awful lot to me like the driving force behind
the decorator syntax was not to shortcut programmer input, but
to move the decorator up to a more prominent position than it
occupied with the existing syntax (i.e. after the function,
possibly even after lots of other functions, and thus somewhat
hidden from the reader).
Shortcutting programmer input has, as far as I can tell, never
been a goal of Python syntax except, perhaps, the += form when
applied merely to primitives...
More information about the Python-list