A decorator syntax not yet mentioned (I think!)

[Jeff Shannon]

Michael Sparks wrote:

>Peter Hansen wrote:
>  
>
>>class Klass:
>>     # init set
>>
>>     decorate:
>>         staticmethod
>>     def meth0(x):
>>         return x
>>    
>>
>
>[snip]
>My initial reaction to @decorators was "ugh!". However I was coming to
>accept it as inevitable after reading the various arguments for/against
>various syntaxes. *This* syntax strikes me personally as having
>distinct advantages - largely for clarity of code, and solves the 
>"where *DOES* the function start?" question with large decorator
>blocks.
>

I agree.  This seems to fit the absolute requirements I've heard passed 
down from GvR, and also avoids all of the things that really made my 
teeth grate about the @decorator syntax.  It's the first prefix syntax 
I've seen that actually *looks* like Python to my eyes.

There's still room for discussion about the specific keyword (I'd be 
happy enough with "decorate", and not so fond of "using" or "with", but 
a case could easily be made for something else...) and about ordering -- 
presenting the decorators as a suite

decorate:
    d1
    d2
def method( ... )
    pass

suggests to me an equivalence to

method = d2(d1(method))

which is the reverse of the ordering of @decorators.  How significant 
the difference is, I can't say...

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International