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

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 : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040805/af59ded4/attachment.pgp

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list