__metaclass__ and __author__ are already decorators

[Paul Morrow]

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
> Paul Morrow wrote:
> 
>> We just need to stop thinking of them as local function variables. 
>> Instead we should think of __xxx__ attributes as describing the 
>> function itself (i.e. as a decorator would), as I believe that is 
>> almost always the author's intention when he/she uses such names 
>> inside of a function/method definition.  He wants to say something 
>> about the function (who wrote it, it's version, etc.), and is probably 
>> sad that it has the side-effect of creating a local variable.  So it 
>> probably shouldn't have that side-effect anymore.  It should create a 
>> function attribute instead (not to be confused with a local variable).
> 
> 
> Which is, like I said, assigning new meaning to an old syntax. That 
> seems confusing to me; why not just create a new syntax?

Because it's not needed and would make the language more complex.

And I don't agree that this would be assigning new 'meaning' to an old 
syntax.  When a programmer creates a __xxx__ class attribute, he is not 
trying to create a normal 'class' attribute --- one the is inherited by 
instances of the class or that holds part of the 'state' of the class. 
Instead, he is trying to make a meta statement about the class (who 
wrote it, what happens during instance initialization, etc.).  In that 
sense, the meaning associated with defining __xxx__ attributes would 
stay the same.