Maybe, just maybe @decorator syntax is ok after all

Mark Bottjer mark_bottjer at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 9 02:05:16 CEST 2004


Mark Bottjer wrote:
> AdSR wrote:
> 
>> You know what, I'm starting to feel the same. Yesterday Anthony
>> Baxter mentioned this URL:
>>
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047112.html
>>
>> where GvR says:
>>
>> """ Given that the whole point of adding decorator syntax is to move
>> the decorator from the end ("foo = staticmethod(foo)" after a
>> 100-line body) to the front, where it is more in-your-face, it should
>> IMO be moved all the way to the front. """

Now combine this with this message, which I just found:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047279.html

where GvR says:

"""In the discussion on decorators months ago, solutions involving
special syntax inside the block were ruled out early on.  Basically,
you shouldn't have to peek inside the block to find out important
external properties of the function.  (Yes, I know that docstrings
violate this principle.  For the record, it would be better if they
were prefix too; and a prefix decorator syntax will let us fix this in
the future but introducing a "doc" decorator.)"""

So the position of the decorators is not open to debate. :(

   -- Mark



More information about the Python-list mailing list