Decorator syntax (was Re: PEP 318 - PyFIT comments)

Ville Vainio ville at spammers.com
Wed Aug 4 21:11:14 CEST 2004


>>>>> "John" == John Roth <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> writes:

    John> Decorator syntax seems to have been checked into 2.4b2.  I'm
    John> not going to comment on the syntax other than to say that,
    John> when there isn't a real obvious syntax, someone has to make
    John> a decision, and this one should work.

Yes, it should work. It's also a terrible waste of @ punctuation,
which should IMO be reserved for some more worthwhile purpose. I was
eagerly waiting for the introduction of decorators (and worried that
the proposed syntaxes would cause the feature to be thrown out), but
this choice of syntax leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and makes me
want to see the intro of decorators to be postponed or scrapped
altogether. 

This syntax is out there with backticks and print>>. And I'm one of
those who voted *for* ternary operator, and generally embrace new
features with enthusiasm.

-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb



More information about the Python-list mailing list