Decorator syntax

[Ames Andreas (MPA/DF)]

Hi,

thanks for your help.

Terry Reedy wrote:

> That particular syntax -- deco in parens and jammed up against was
> never proposed.  A similar syntax -- no parens and a space was.
> Guide said a) he thought there would be parser issues and b) this
> would cause problems with all support tools that assume that the
> next name after def is the function name.

I just found this style appropriate because it thus looks like a
parameter to "def", which it, the decorator, somehow is, if I
understand correctly.  The same could be done to "class", but
unfortunately not to (instance) variables(, because they have no
keyword for declaration).  I could even imagine

class<deco1> Test:
             def<deco2> test1(self):
                        self.i<deco3> = "foo"

and yes, I'm coming from a C/C++ background, if you haven't realized
yet and, what's worse, I still like those :-).

> Also, some of the major proponents want parameterized decorators and
> multiple decorators, not just a different position for staticmethod
> and classmethod.  So

I can't see a problem here.  If I understand correctly, decorators are
meant to be some sort of callables, so if you need parameters you can
very easily use functors (just bear with my C++ heritage once again
;-) or however those classes with a __call__ method are called in
python.  That's exactly what I use functors regularly for.

> For what its worth: 1) this issue and multiple alternatives has been
> discussed since at least Jan 03.  Since then, it has possibly taken
> more devel time, and probably more Pydev postings than any single
> other issue; 2) the PEP is broken and Guido knows it.  We'll see if

Then I can very well understand that almost everyone seems quite
emotional about this thing.  Sorry for beating a dead horse here, but
I just wanted to insert my € 0,02.


cheers,

andreas