RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jun 2 11:19:24 EDT 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045125.html

Anthony's updates to PEP 320 (the 2.4 release schedule) reminded me
that I still haven't decided on the decorator syntax.  I still hate
the most popular proposal (def foo(args) [decorators]: body) and my
own proposal is unpopular.  I just saw the Java metadata syntax again
and want to think about being inspired by that instead of by the C#
syntax.  On the plus side, Java's @name(kwargs) syntax allows us to
put decorators in front methods and classes without ambiguous syntax;
on the minus side, using up a potential operator character for one
specific purpose should not be done lightly.  But I don't want to get
too deep into this discussion -- I just want to suggest that we put
this off and get 2.4 on the road without any decorator syntax at all.
What do people think of that?

Posts proposing syntax alternatives will be deleted unread.

--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-June/045125.html below:

[Python-Dev] Dropping decorator syntax for 2.4?