PEP-0318

[Mark Bottjer]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Mark Bottjer <mark_bottjer at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>     * 0 Perhaps decorators should be allowed before or after the
>>         docstring. If you have to choose, I'd choose making it before
>>         the docstring.
> 
> It's a pretty arbitrary decision (i.e. I can't see any strong arguments 
> one way or the other) which means it's the kind of thing which is likely 
> to not be remembered.  I think I'm with you, decorators come first, then 
> the docstring.  But pick one and stick with it, so everybody does it the 
> same way.

I agree that it is arbitrary. I horked the text from one of the other 
sections, as I thought that it applied here as well.

>>     * - Lots of decorators will make it harder to find the start of the
>>         function implementation. Then again, so will a large docstring.
 >
> Do people anticipate having lots of decorators for a given function?

The way they've been talking, it would appear so. I'm routinely hearing 
a bunch of different things people want to use this syntax for: 
staticmethod/classmethod, argument type assertion, DBC, synchronization, 
metadata such as author, and framework callback registration, just to 
name a few.

   -- Mark