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.) My other example, the zope.formlib example, has only ever involved a single decorator, and is always a method. It could conceivably be applied to a nested class without much of a stretch, however. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> _______________________________________________ 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
