PEP 318: Can't we all just get along?

djw dwelch91 at
Wed Aug 18 13:21:27 EDT 2004

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I wrote the original PEP 318.  I probably wasn't 
>> qualified, but I just wanted a nice simple way to declare class 
>> methods without having to repeat the function name.  After submitting 
>> it to BDFL for approval, more work was needed and the discussion of 
>> PEP 318 on python-dev increased rapidly.  It was evident that I was in 
>> over my head, so I asked more someone more experienced to take over. 
>> I guess others had bigger plans for my proposal that I had planned.  
>> It has turned into the "solution" to many problems: type checking 
>> (both arguments and returned values), metaclasses, metadata, 
>> interfaces, function attributes, etc.).  Unfortunately, in the 
>> process, this simple request for syntactical sugar has turned into a 
>> monstrosity.  In my opinion, none of the proposed syntaxes really seem 
>> Pythonic.  This PEP just seems to be trying to solve too many problems.
>> Bear with me, but I'd like to propose one more syntax that is simple, 
>> easy for newbies to understand,  and nowhere near as powerful as the 
>> current PEP's syntax.  However, it doesn't add incoherent, arbitrary 
>> syntax either.
>> def classmethod foo(x, y, z):
>>     pass
>> That's it.  One "decorator" that is a callable object that takes a 
>> method as it's only argument.  No expressions, lists, tuples, etc.  
>> Just one callable object.  
> +2 for me.
>> Ok, if you absolutely must have more than one.
>  > def classmethod synchronized foo(x, y, z):
>  >     pass
> No. If you want more than one, provide your own decorator, ie :
> def synchronizedClassmethod(method):
>   return synchronized(classmethod(method))
> def synchronizedClassmethod foo(x, y, z):
>   pass
> My 2 eurocents
> Bruno


More information about the Python-list mailing list