Alternative decorator syntax decision

[Nicolas Fleury]

Anthony Baxter wrote:
>>- Not Pythonic.  It's a line without a block (like try/finally) that
>>affects a following line of code.  It breaks interactive shells.
> 
> I've seen this mentioned a couple of times, but as far as I can see, 
> it's really not true:

I just copied from Wiki honestly.

> This form (decorators inside the block) has been pretty convincingly
> ruled out by Guido. I think the "last man standing" is the decorator-before-def
> form, I really doubt you're going to convince people that  the form inside the
> function is workable.

I sadly discovered after my post it has been ruled out.  I agree the 
"last man standing" is the decorator-before-def form.  In fact, we 
should make a thread about only this proposal.

Regards,
Nicolas