On 3/28/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:01 AM 3/28/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >OK, I'm convinced (mostly by the awful hackery that Phillip so proudly > >exposed :-). > > Just as a historical note, here's where you previously rejected the same > hackery as an argument for supporting class decorators: > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043462.html > > Ironically, the subsequent discussion following the above message brought > me around to your point of view. :) > > Or more precisely, the subsequent discussion and examples convinced me that > putting class decorators on top of the class was bad for readability, vs. > putting them in the body just after the docstring. As you said, "the use > cases are certainly very *different* than those for function/method > decorators". > > So at this point I'd rather see a way to make my hackery go away (or become > part of the standard library in some fashion) rather than simply mimic > @decorators for classes.
That's fine. But there's also the C#/Java POV. I'm somehow concerned that any mechanism that puts the syntax inside the class body is somehow going to have a hackish implementation, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong, so please come up with a concrete proposal! -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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