Are decorators really that different from metaclasses...

[Paolo Veronelli]

Steven Bethard wrote:
> Paul Morrow <pm_mon <at> yahoo.com> writes:

>>So why don't they share a similar syntax?
>>
>>    class Foo:
>>       """ This is the docstring for class Foo. """
>>       __metaclass__ = M
>>       # body of class goes here
>>
>>
>>    def baz():
>>       """ This is the docstring for function baz. """
>>       __features__ = synchronized, memoized
>>       # body of function goes here.
> 
> 

> 
> So the basic answer is that decorators are different from metaclasses because 
> the code inside the funcdef block is executed when the function is /called/, 
> while the code inside the classdef is executed when the class is /declared/.
> 
This can be seen as an engine choice and IMO is very far from touching 
the syntax issue.
Still I posted a question before:

Is not time to put order in the possible uses of __xxx__ with a job on 
classifying them and stop looking for a better role for BDFL?

Proposals:

1) Ban a "just because I'm free of doing it" use of them as 
settable/gettable attributes (in place of  non special meanings attributes)
   (optional actually)

2)One or more builtin classes (interfaces)  useful to build their 
significance,with a previous work on classifying possible levels of 
interpreter instructioning:
	a) Syntactical level:
		_1) (re)defining operators code
		_2) ......
	b)  Allocational level:
		__init__,__new__,__metaclass__ ....????
	c)  Decorational:
		.........
	d) Globalish:
		__name__,....
	d)  Whatelsetional ......
		
		Good meditation to all Paolino