RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 3 16:04:38 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046701.html

>      Here's a brief test for a syntax-change-less implementation of this 
> feature, not as complete as test_decorators, but a good start, I believe:

[fast forward to syntax example]

>          decorate(staticmethod)
>          def bar(x):
>              print x
> 
>          decorate(classmethod)
>          def baz(cls, y):
>              print cls, y

I'm speechless.  If the ambiguous

    [classmethod]
    def foo(x):
        ...

is rejected because it doesn't look like it does something to foo, how
come there's suddenly a crop of solutions that have the same problem
being proposed?  What you write looks like a call to the function
decorate(), followed by a function method definition.  The
"action-at-a-distance" that is presumed by the decorate() call is
difficult to explain and a precedent for other worse hacks.  Its only
point in favor seems to be that it doesn't use '@'.

--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/046701.html below:

[Python-Dev] 2.4a2, and @decorators