RetroSearch Browse

Wed Aug 18 22:24:13 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048018.html

On Aug 18, 2004, at 4:07 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> def classmethod foo(x, y, z):
>>     pass
>> That's it.
>
> Indeed, that is form F (5.13) in
>
> http://www.python.org/moin/PythonDecorators
>
> So this proposal is not new, and has the advantages
> and disadvantages listed in the Wiki. The main reason
> to reject it (AFAICT) is the similarity to monstrosities
> such as "public final synchronized void foo()".

Yes, I realize that this syntax isn't new (I believe that it was even 
used in an example in my original PEP).  I hadn't actually read Wiki 
before, but the only minus that I really see for this syntax is that 
you can't have arguments to the decorators.  I guess I just find the 
"public final synchronized void foo()" less monstrous than

@public
@final
@synchronized
@void
def foo()

Kevin Smith
Kevin.Smith at sas.com

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048018.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 318: Can't we all just get along?