Alternative decorator syntax decision

Colin J. Williams cjw at
Sat Aug 21 14:39:39 CEST 2004

Anthony Baxter wrote:

> On 20 Aug 2004 00:31:35 -0700, Paul Rubin
> <""@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?
Another six months won't make much difference.  The transform 
functionality is there now.  PEP 318 formalizes things.

Colin W.
>>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