Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes: > [Various proposals suggesting the use of a single decorator block to > decorate multiple method definitions] > > I'm not keen on this. I expect that beyond classmethod and > staticmethod there aren't many use cases for repeating the same > decorator exactly multiple times. It also requires indenting the > method, which I've already argued against. And lastly it removes the > decorator from the method definition again, thereby defeating the > readability goals: when you look at a def in isolation, you may forget > to look several pages up for a decorator. > > I think this is too far-fetched to consider as an alternative to the > humble @decorator. Maybe, but if you're still serious about improving support for domain-specific embedded languages in Python you ought to give the ideas another look. If a reasonable syntax for decorators falls out of a more general and useful mechanism, so much the better. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4