[Python-Dev] Strawman decision: @decorator won't change

Arthur ajsiegel at optonline.com
Fri Sep 17 14:42:20 CEST 2004

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:28:52 GMT, "Paul McGuire"
<ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com> wrote:

>"Peter Otten" <__peter__ at web.de> wrote in message
>news:cibkl1$395$07$1 at news.t-online.com...
>> I took the freedom to forward GvR's mail concerning decorator cosmetics.
>> I think you should know about it.
>> Peter
>Why? Sounds like the same rigged rules as before.  Who wants to burn up any
>more cycles on this?


>I and many others have offered our feedback (i.e., complained) that '@' is
>an offense to the eye, a blot on Python's heretofore cleanness of syntax and
>form, and implicit readability.  '@' doesn't *mean* anything.  At least '|'
>brings a "pipe" semantic from Unix, or '^' evokes a "return" concept from
>Smalltalk, or '>>' the notion of "stream" from C++.  When I see '@', the
>first thing I think of is e-mail, and the second thing I think of is an
>invoice ("20 widgets @ $0.25 = $5.00").
>So what?  It all boils down to "I like 'X'", "Well, I like 'Y'", to "Thanks
>for your feedback, the answer is '@'."

And were it opened for debate you would run into bizarre arguments in
its defense.  Like mine.

That there a mechanism in Python described by a arbitrary word,
"decorator" and provoked by an  arbitrary symbol '@'

The symbol *works*,  as a sore thumb and a tacit admission of

It is defended in this view by its anti-esthetic.

Having to put up with this kind of argument in its defense is perhaps
a good reason to not re-open the discussion.


More information about the Python-list mailing list