[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
Barry Warsaw
barry at python.org
Thu Aug 5 22:03:16 CEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 15:32, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > 2. people who think that decorators without arguments are pointless, and
> > don't agree amongst themselves on the proper syntax, but don't necessarily
> > care that much as long as there *is* one. (But there may be a slight
> > leaning towards either of the C#-inspired variants.)
>
> So they should defend @ because it's there.
I hate repeating myself, but I will anyway. :)
I'm in camp 2, but now that pie decorators are in, and I've had a chance
to convert my code to use them, I'm strongly +1 in favor of this
syntax. It stands out nicely, and to me indicates a stronger affinity
to the def that follows it than the C# syntax.
I was never in favor of C# syntax, and I'm glad it wasn't chosen. I
strongly disliked that it subtly changed the semantics of currently
valid Python. I like that pie decorators code cannot run in older
Pythons, because if it /could/ it certainly wouldn't work.
'scuze-me-while-i-eat-the-pie-ly y'rs,
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
Next message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list