At 10:01 AM 3/28/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: >OK, I'm convinced (mostly by the awful hackery that Phillip so proudly >exposed :-). Just as a historical note, here's where you previously rejected the same hackery as an argument for supporting class decorators: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043462.html Ironically, the subsequent discussion following the above message brought me around to your point of view. :) Or more precisely, the subsequent discussion and examples convinced me that putting class decorators on top of the class was bad for readability, vs. putting them in the body just after the docstring. As you said, "the use cases are certainly very *different* than those for function/method decorators". So at this point I'd rather see a way to make my hackery go away (or become part of the standard library in some fashion) rather than simply mimic @decorators for classes.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4