I always realized the restriction was there, and once in a while mention it in teaching. But I've NEVER had an actual desire to use anything other that a simple decorator or a "decorator factory" (which I realize is a decorator in the grammar, but it's worth teaching how to parameterize custom ones, which is a factory).
I've used barry_as_FLUFL more often, actually... Albeit always joking around for students, not in production covfefe. On Sep 16, 2017 9:46 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <ba...@python.org> wrote: On Sep 16, 2017, at 02:39, Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > I'm not proposing that we allow arbitrary expressions as decorators... well, I'm not doing that yet at least. But like I said, the syntax has been this way for 13 years and I don't recall anybody complaining. Indeed, I can’t remember a single time where I’ve needed that, let alone actually realized the restriction existed. But now that you mention it, I do remember discussions in favor of the more restricted syntax when the feature was originally being debated. I don’t remember the reasons though - it well could have been an abundance of caution over how far to take the new syntax (and understanding of course that it’s easier to relax than restrict). -Barry _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ mertz%40gnosis.cx
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
