Confused about pep 318

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter at gmail.com> writes:

    Anthony> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:

    >> I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
    >> does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax
    >> does.

    Anthony> FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused
    Anthony> symbol. That's all.  It's hardly arbitrary - Java, for
    Anthony> instance, already uses @ for the same thing.

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.

And "def decorator func(args):" is even worse. Most interesting
applications of decorators involve decorators with arguments...

-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb