RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 2

[Peter Hansen]

Anthony Baxter wrote:

>>This is a bad joke after all the strong perplexities showed about its
>>decorators solution.
>>I vote against the "@decorator before function" solution.
> 
> Please feel free to actually provide reasons for not liking @decorators.
> 
> Also - if you think you don't like it - please _try_ _it_ _out_ first.

Actually, I think many people *are* trying it out right now...
by reading the posts in this forum.

Python is not supposed to be a write-only language, as are some
other P languages that tend to use lots of punctuation for arbitrary
purposes (as surely no one has forgotten).

Python is supposed to be an *eminently readable* language.  Those
of us objecting on the grounds of things like "ugliness" are actually
*reading* the examples and sample code that are being posted, and
are finding them *highly unreadable*.  This is a valid reaction, and
since code is more often read than written (as again I don't need
to remind anyone), the readability of a feature should weigh much
more heavily than how easy it is to use after you try it out for
yourself.  IMHO.

Yes, of course after using them for a while they will become more 
readable, but there are people who have learned to speak Klingon as
well -- and that doesn't change the fact that Klingon is deliberately
very difficult to learn and awkward.

Furthermore, a number of people seem to be claiming that decorators
will be rarely used, so the @ syntax shouldn't be considered a problem.
They are getting it exactly backwards!  If decorators will be rarely
used, then make sure the syntax is more readable than not, and even if
it's a tad more cumbersome to write, who will mind?  They aren't going
to be used that often, right?!

-Peter