Alternative decorator syntax decision

Gerrit Muller gerrit.muller at embeddedsystems.nl
Fri Aug 20 10:53:05 CEST 2004


Paul Rubin wrote:

> "Paul McGuire" <ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com> writes:
> 
>>I would propose a multivote survey: each poster gets 3 votes among the
>>lettered choices on the Wiki page above.  You can use all 3 for a single
>>option, or split them across 2 or 3 options if you are open to more than
>>one.
> 
> 
> 1. My favorite variant was not in the list.
> 
> 2. Any of the choices will have far reaching consequences that aren't
>    yet thought out very well.  There is not yet enough experience
>    programming with the existing mechanisms (classmethods etc.) to
>    be sure what's really worthwhile.  
> 
> 3. There's not all that much discussion on the wiki of how other
>    languages do this stuff.
> 
> 4. There's nowhere near consensus that any of the choices presented so
>    far are not plain horrible.
> 
> My conclusion: Python 2.4 should not have new decorator syntax.  Stay
> with the existing stuff, for now.
> 
> Discussion and exploration should continue and the question should be
> revisited for 2.5.  For 2.4, extend the current kludgy (decorators
> separated from the function) mechanism if needed to provide necessary
> functionality, but deprecate any new such feature as soon as it's
> introduced, with the explanation that it's exploratory. 

Hear, Hear! I just replied in a similar way, before reading your response.

regards Gerrit

-- 
Gaudi systems architecting:
<http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/>




More information about the Python-list mailing list