On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 08:11:50AM -0000, [email protected] wrote:
> I think a property decorator can be useful, because you consider the simplest
> case with:
We already have `property`, which can be used as a decorator.
> ```python
> class MyClass:
> @my_property
> name = arg
> ```
How is it different from
name = my_property(arg)
which is possible right now, you don't need decorator syntax.
> All it will be possible if attribute decorator will have the following
> signature:
All of it is possible *right now*. You don't need decorator syntax to do
any of those examples you show, you just need function calls.
You keep showing examples of function calls that do marvellous things,
but at no point have you shown any reason why those functions need to be
called using decorator syntax instead of ordinary function call syntax.
With your decorator suggestion, your marvellous function can only take a
single argument:
@function # takes a single argument
name = arg
but with regular function calls, you can pass any combinations of
positional and keyword arguments:
name = function(arg, more, args, key=value, word=thing)
So it seems to me that you want to add special syntax that is *less*
powerful than what we already have. Why does this have to use decorator
syntax?
Please don't give us another list of fantastic things that you can do
with function calls, we already know that function calls can do
anything. Tell us how the `@function` syntax is better than the
`function(arg)` syntax.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2OKPZNDHMR66G5JEJJMF6KCQXD4BUBKG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
