[Python-Dev] Questions about '@' in pep 318 (original) (raw)

Edward K. Ream edreamleo at charter.net
Fri Aug 6 15:50:08 CEST 2004

> I think @ before def are unacceptable because they aren't too Pythonic > and thus break style and aesthetics of Python.

This is not a convincing statement.

I agree. The argument that @ lines aren't clearly "attached" to functions seems much more convincing to me.

Surely I am repeating somebody else's points, but I'm going to say them anyway:

  1. There doesn't seem much debate that dropping @ from the list of symbols that can never appear in Python programs (outside of comments and strings) is, in fact, a major change to the language.

  2. Maybe the @ syntax is somehow the best alternative, considered in isolation. Fair enough. But how much better? Enough to justify a major change to the language? What is so unreadable about def (...)[...]: ?

  3. I agree with Phillip Eby that an @ line looks like some external document markup. This is, if fact, a common usage for the @ sign: Leo uses the @ sign for this reason. But to be fair, this is a very minor point.

  4. No doubt Python programmers will grow used to any syntax whatever it is, including @ or def (...)[...]. Whatever slight discomfort people will feel with a new syntax will quickly fade.

In short, a major change to Python (@) would seem to demand a truly convincing justification. IMO, the argument that @ is more readable than def (...)[...]: doesn't even come close to such a justification. YMMV. And only GvR's mileage counts :-)

Edward

Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo at charter.net Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list