PEP318 alternate syntax idea

[Jim Jewett]

Stephen Horne <steve at ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<vb0060pr3pqqa9a539l6ld9oehkngi03vg at 4ax.com>...

> ... if decorators really catch on, there could be cases where
> they are applied repeatedly to many functions, and
> possibly with many decorators.  

> ... [Could we move the redundant lists to a single preamble]
> how about...
 
> def [staticmethod, ...] :
>     #  could use alternate keyword such as 'decorate'

>     def a (a1, a2) :
>         "this function is decorated"
>         ...

>     def b (b1, b2) :
>         "this function is also decorated"
>         ...
 
> def c (c1, c2) :
>     "this function is _not_ decorated"
>     ...

This was soundly rejected.  I liked the idea myself, until
Phillip Eby explained what I was missing.

In python, 

    block_starter:
        indented_code1
        indented_code2

implies something about the how the *indented* code will be run.
It may get skipped (if/else), repeated (for/while) or delayed
(class, def), but it will definately do something strange.

With decorators, the function definition itself is normal (and
therefore should not be indented); it is the decorators that
run at an unexpected time.

using:
    decorator1
    decorator2
    decorator3
def a (args):
    pass

may still be an option, but it doesn't answer your request for a
*single* preamble.  I agree that creating a lambda *just* to bundle
the decorators is ugly, but if you really have a large number of
decorators that always go together ... maybe there is a good name
for the collection.

-jJ