Alternative decorator syntax decision

Anthony Baxter anthonybaxter at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 10:42:20 CEST 2004


On 20 Aug 2004 00:31:35 -0700, Paul Rubin
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> My conclusion: Python 2.4 should not have new decorator syntax.  Stay
> with the existing stuff, for now.

This is not an option that is going to happen. The decorators thread
has been discussed on python-dev for 2 1/2 years. The case for including
them has been decided. The original decorators (classmethod, staticmethod)
were introduced in Python 2.2, released late 2001. How long do you think
we should wait?

> 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.

This is not the way Python works. "experimental" stuff doesn't stay experimental
once the first beta release is out. I see no reason to change this -
it increases
the costs dramatically for companies who are using Python if they have to
rewrite their code every second release.



More information about the Python-list mailing list