On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:11:06AM -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 00:48, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > > I think the existing usage for classes is perfectly readable. The > > @-syntax works well for functions as well. > > On re-reading what I wrote, I don't think I actually clarified the point I > was > trying to make originally. > > My point wasn't that I desparately need @-syntax for class decorators (I > don't), or see it as inherantly superior in some way. It's much simpler than > that: I just want to be able to use the same syntax for a group of use cases > regardless of whether the target is a function or a class. > > This fits into the nice-to-have category for me, since the use case can be > the > same regardless of whether I'm decorating a class or a function. (I will > note that when this use case applies to a function, it's usually a > module-level function I'm decorating rather than a method.)
Agreed, let's not have the decorator syntax argument all over again. Once someone knows how a function decorator works they should be able to guess how a class decorator works. In my old patch[1] the grammar production for decorators was: decorated_thing: decorators (funcdef|classdef) Which makes sense, once you know how to decorate one thing you know how to decorate all things. -jackdied [1] http://python.org/sf/1007991 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com