[Python-Dev] Re: decorators and 2.4

[Martin Zarate]

I'm not sure if I should be writing this, I apologise in advanced if I'm 
wasting anyone's time - I've read over all of the arguments on decorators 
(last time I posted on the subject I hadn't, and I apologise for that as well).

I know Guido wants no new concepts of syntax, but it seems that all the 
concepts have merit - so why not a little synergy?   Best of both worlds?

first complaint:
@ is currently used in many projects, and is an ugly character.

second complaint:
> [descriptors]
> def blah blah blah:
is currently valid Python, and looks like valid Python, so it will confuse 
people.

third complaint:
many suggestions are ungreppable.

So, a solution, mixing them all so that it becomes more than a simple list 
declaration:

as [descriptors]
def blah blah blah:

or, an alternate, simply using the "as" keyword in the place of Guido's Java-
style "@" character.

as descriptor1
as descriptor2
def blah blah blah:

Both of these are far more unique than other suggested blocks of code (like 
the [] header), allowing easier grepping and syntax highlighting, without 
having to go using the @ character that a) takes up one of the few unused 
Python special characters and b) breaks compatibility with some external 
processor programs.

IIRC, the "as" keyword became a protected keyword in recent versions, did it 
not?  So it doesn't break anything to convert into a full keyword.  It also 
makes syntactic sense, as you read "as staticmethod define myfunction" or "as 
functor(member1, member2, member3) define myfunction"  when you read aloud.  
It makes sense, keeping Python code legible and friendly.

In my personal tastes, I'd prefer the "as" keywords to go below the function 
header before the docstring, but I see that most others disagree.

Anyhow, my suggestion is a little more verbose, but I find it very legible and 
sensible (and given how Python is often used as a learning language, those 
features should be near the forefront).  I hope I haven't wasted anyone's time.

-- Martin Z.