[Python-Dev] Re: def ... decorate (original) (raw)

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Fri Aug 13 21:06:35 CEST 2004

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:06:13 +0100 Gareth McCaughan <gmccaughan at synaptics-uk.com> wrote:

def pstatementexpr(self, p): """docstring goes here""" print p[1] decorated: staticmethod grammarrule('statement : expression') version("Added in 2.4") deprecatedmethod type(None)

which keeps the arguments with the function name, keeps the body right after the name and arguments, and puts the decoration after the body which corresponds with the order in which things actually happen (though not necessarily the best order for understanding the code).

You seem to have missed the point of function decorations entirely. We already have what you offer in current Python syntax. The point was to move decorations to near/next to the function signature.

Read the PEP: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0318.html

I actually quite like this. It seems more Pythonic than the @foo proposal. Its obvious problem is that it involves something that looks at first glance like an ordinary suite of statements or expressions, but whose interpretation is substantially different. At least the @foo proposal avoids that.

What you like is what has existed with Python since the beginning.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list