Alternative decorator syntax decision

Paul Rubin http
Fri Aug 20 09:31:35 CEST 2004


"Paul McGuire" <ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com> writes:
> I would propose a multivote survey: each poster gets 3 votes among the
> lettered choices on the Wiki page above.  You can use all 3 for a single
> option, or split them across 2 or 3 options if you are open to more than
> one.

1. My favorite variant was not in the list.

2. Any of the choices will have far reaching consequences that aren't
   yet thought out very well.  There is not yet enough experience
   programming with the existing mechanisms (classmethods etc.) to
   be sure what's really worthwhile.  

3. There's not all that much discussion on the wiki of how other
   languages do this stuff.

4. There's nowhere near consensus that any of the choices presented so
   far are not plain horrible.

My conclusion: Python 2.4 should not have new decorator syntax.  Stay
with the existing stuff, for now.

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. 



More information about the Python-list mailing list