[Python-Dev] Re: method decorators (PEP 318) (original) (raw)

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Mar 29 09:23:52 EST 2004

At 06:27 PM 3/28/04 -0500, Robert Mollitor wrote:

Robert> ... there is a trivial workaround if we restrict the transformer Robert> list to identifiers:

Robert> sync = synchronized(lockattr="baz") Robert> def func [sync] (arg1, arg2): Robert> pass I think restricting decorators to only be identifiers would be shortsighted. I can understand having to create workarounds for unforseen situations, but it's clear at this point in the discussion that decorator functions might need to accept parameters. Why not let them? It is easier to expand a public grammar than it is to shrink one.

And it's better to cripple a syntax extension in order to justify making a second syntax extension that's a crufty workaround for the crippling? That doesn't make any sense to me.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list