decorator J4 - any objections?
jeff at ccvcorp.com
Sat Aug 21 01:31:41 CEST 2004
Larry Bates wrote:
>If docstring can be a special case of a triple quoted
>string, I don't see why decorators couldn't be a special
>case of a dictionary.
>I'm sure there is a reason, but it would seem to make
>"Python"-sense to me. It would then be very extensible
>for the meta-data that everyone seems to also want decorators
The biggest reason that I'm aware of is that GvR has declared that he
doesn't think decorators belong inside a function def, and has even been
quoted as having professed a regret for having put docstrings there.
(Personally, I think that having all of this stuff immediately inside
the function def makes great sense, but I'm not a world-famous language
designer, so what do I know? ;) )
In fact, the biggest problem that I can see with the J4 syntax is its
close similarity to all of the decorator-inside-def variations. Since
GvR has spoken strongly against putting decorators in that location, it
seems to me to be a waste of effort to advocate for that. Now, perhaps
having that outdented keyword to indicate the function-body start
*might* make a difference with him... but I would expect that it won't.
More information about the Python-list