RetroSearch Browse

Mon Aug 2 21:09:17 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046643.html

> >>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.

Can it?  I must've missed that.  It sure sounds like an incredible
hack -- how to you prevent the default behavior that the list of
decorators is thrown away by the interpreter?

> >>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?

Because that syntax received significant boohs when I presented it at
EuroPython.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046643.html below:

[Python-Dev] 2.4a2, and @decorators