[Python-Dev] Re: 2.4a2, and @decorators (original) (raw)

Jeremy Hylton jhylton at gmail.com
Wed Aug 4 20:45:54 CEST 2004

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:46:55 -0400, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:

Terry Reedy wrote:

.... > Decorators will add complexity, regardless of syntax. Especially in their current over-powered form. If decorators didn't have to take arguments, then you could use a syntax like: def classmethod foo(cls, ...): ... This does add complexity, but I think it enhances understandability. I understand why some people want to be able to pass arguments to decorators, but frankly, I find many of the examples of doing so down right scary.

I wonder if we should have add a note to the Python style guide that forbids such things from the standard library <0.2 wink>.

> An advantage of the > @ syntax is than it makes the complexiity separable and ignorable for > someone learning/teaching basic Python,

I don't agree that they are ignorable. People will see them in code and will have to understand what they mean. Given sme examples I've seen here, this will sometimes be a significant chalenge.

It certainly depends on the use. I don't think @classmethod will be any more or less confusing than the current practice of calling foo = staticmethod(foo) after the def. I agree that more elaborate uses may be confusing; then again, I suspect that more elaborate code will be confusing regardless of how it uses decorators.

Jeremy

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list