On 11/15/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i understand there's a green light for class decorators in py3k, > so i wanted to give the issue a slight push.
"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, most of the arguments against PEP 359 were along the lines of, > "well you can do that with a metaclass already, so we don't really > need any new syntax", but you may be able to get around those > arguments because the decorator syntax already exists. On 11/15/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a post from Guido in response to Phillip and Greg in which he > says more or less; someone write a PEP so that we can get them > into 2.6 and Py3k... > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-March/062942.html Thanks for the link. > If Tomer (or someone else) writes a PEP, I don't see why (the > previously overlooked) class decorators shouldn't make it into > 2.6 and 3.0 . So the purpose of this thread then is to write the PEP? If so, my comments about the use cases are still valid. If they weren't convincing use cases before, they're not likely to be convincing use cases for a PEP. Or was there another purpose of the thread? Steve -- I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
