[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators

[Barry Warsaw]

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 17:07, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

> Or you could argue on a procedural basis: regardless of whether
> the feature is good or bad, the current implementation is
> unacceptable, as the PEP does not correspond with the
> implementation, the syntax is undocumented, the code has no test
> cases, and so on. I'm actually going to do that, because I do
> think the process is unacceptable, and should be either corrected
> or reversed (of course, this says nothing about the feature itself,
> or the code implementing it).

Martin makes a good point.  Guido could threaten to remove the feature
by beta 1 (and thus for 2.4 final) if the PEP is not brought up to date.

not-that-i'm-volunteering-'cause-i'd-rather-see-it-done-ly y'rs,
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040805/e8230d4a/attachment.pgp