Confused about pep 318

[Anthony Baxter]

On 05 Aug 2004 22:16:44 +0300, Ville Vainio <ville at spammers.com> wrote:
> The problem with @ as I see it (FWIW, of course) is that the new
> syntax wastes @ for a minor feature. I wouldn't mind @[decorator],
> which would allow reserving stuff like @private (compiler / type
> inferrer / macro / whatever) for future extension of the language.

See, that's a matter of opinion. I don't think decorators will end up 
being a "minor feature". I think they have the potential for much 
interesting meta-programming. I also don't think that hanging onto
a particular ascii glyph for "some future use" is particularly useful - 
I'm not aware of any other potential use for this. Unless we use 
it to indicate an array <wink>.