RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 2 19:30:03 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046630.html

At 01:14 PM 8/2/04 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote:

>>I would think the fact that the '[decorators]' syntax can be implemented 
>>in pure Python (no changes to the interpreter) for existing Python 
>>versions would give more weight to it.  That is, if someone wants to 
>>implement a decorator that's forwards and backwards-compatible, that's 
>>possible with the list syntax, but not the @ syntax.
>
>.. but that also means you can still make the [decorators] syntax work in 
>2.4, if you want compatibility or don't like @syntax.

But then why not just make that the default syntax, so that no migration is 
necessary, and only one syntax has to be learned/explained to people?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046630.html below:

[Python-Dev] 2.4a2, and @decorators