RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 4 22:36:11 EDT 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045216.html

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 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?

How about:

from __experimental__ import decorator_syntax

  Paul Prescod

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045216.html below:

[Python-Dev] Dropping decorator syntax for 2.4?