[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Aug 5 21:32:15 CEST 2004

At 10:14 AM 8/5/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >[Phillip] > > Does this mean that the C#-style syntax has a chance if it's got a > > future? :) > >I don't see how that would change the arguments against it.

I thought the primary argument against it was that it changes the meaning of (potentially existing) Python code, and that you had rejected the "hard to learn" argument on the basis that people learn by pattern-matching rather than principle.

No, the reason I decided to drop that was was the ambiguity in people's heads.

I guess this is another reason to update the PEP... :)

Indeed.

>No, but I suggest that the proponents of syntax alternatives will >have to agree amongst themselves on a single alternative that they >can present to me.

I think that will pretty much guarantee that it's either @ or nothing: it appears that the two biggest (or at least most vocal) camps are: 1. people who want a "simpler" syntax that doesn't support arguments (who seem to mostly favor 'def classmethod foo()')

Tough beans. They should have a look at how decorators are used in C# and Java 1.5.

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.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list