PEP318

[Arthur]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:43:05 +1000, Anthony Baxter
<anthonybaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:03:19 GMT, Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
>> >def foo ():
>> >   whatever
>> >foo = decorator (foo)
>> >
>> >is that you have to type the word "foo" three times.
>> 
>> Big f**king deal - all things considered. ;)
>
>When this name is a PyObjC name that might be 70 characters long,
>it becomes a big deal.

PyOdjC keeps being mentioned as the poster project for @decorator. 

Isn't it fair to note that projects where the naming of functions is
outside the control of the developers are blue moon situations?

The kind of constraint that might be expected to lead to some extra
effort. Which the PyObjC developers seemed to be quite willing and
able to face with some equanimity, in the absence of a native
@decorator facility.

Just a debating point, or at least an effort to neutralize, a bit, a
statement that seems to be little more than a debating point.
  

Art