PEP318

[Arthur]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:33:50 -0400, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:

>Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
>> I must say that after days of waffling, and I think an honest effort
>> to accept where things were going, I woke this morning hating
>> @decorator.
>> 
>> The existing syntax for this kind of transformation is, in fact,
>> exactly what one would expect:
>> 
>> foo=staticmathed(foo).
>> 
>> That is the universal langauge for transformations.  And when we try
>> to explain to anybody what it is that @decorator means, we go back to
>> the pseudo code that is in fact the existing syntax.
>
>I'm with Arthur.

Yes and no. 

I am contendingt that that staus quo (pre 2.4 alpha2), all things
considered, is the best we are going to do, realistically.

Within the framwork of Python as it is, and without making changes to
Python as it is out of proportion to the need that is being addressed.

I certainly thing that @decorator is a chnage out of proportion to the
need being addressed.

But you are proposing a non-starter, which implicitly rejects the
status quo.  And proposes other changes out of proportion to the need
being addressed.

>
>One of the objections to:
>
>def foo ():
>   whatever
>foo = decorator (foo)
>
>is that you have to type the word "foo" three times.  

Big f**king deal - all things considered. ;)

Art