__name__ becoming read-write?

Arthur ajsiegel at optonline.com
Tue Aug 24 16:00:35 CEST 2004


On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:41:57 +1000, Anthony Baxter
<anthonybaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:09:56 GMT, Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
>> All I think I am looking for is proportionality.  The solution should
>> be proportional to the problem.  The current syntax is expressive in
>> the way that, I thought, was always considered to be fundamental to
>> the concept of Pythonic.
>
>See, I think decorators _are_ proportional to the problem. I think one
>thing is that decorators are a nice language feature that will allow
>for a large number of new approaches - things that wouldn't
>necessarily have been considered before now.

On the other hand, its just sugar - and nothing but.

But yes, it will encourage new approaches. Decorator libraries.
Modularization.  Code reuse. 

I think I see some of the good.

But all at a cost.  I would be comforted to hear you say something
about the costs you perceive.  If you present it is all just a win,
it becomes too easy to challenge your assessment. So easy, that even
someone like myself can pull it off, at least to an extent - and at
least in my own judgement.

I reserve the right to be wrong in my overall assessment.  But I have
to doubt that I am wrong in stressing that none of this new power and
possibility comes for free.

Art
 




More information about the Python-list mailing list