I have no problems with decorators by the way. Cherrypy (a web framework/library) uses a decorator-ish syntax, so if implementing a library for working around .NET details and IronPython is needed, it would not be out of line to use a decorator. I just think the close CPython and IronPython can be, the better it is for everyone.
Eric
On 3/27/06, Keith J. Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the purposes of consistency, the attribute decorators would need to apply everywhere an attribute is able to exist in .NET: types, members, etc.
In the case of Serializable, merely subclassing ISerializable isn't necessarily the best way, since a class can be decorated with SerializableAttribute instead.
Would magic comments be sufficient? eg
// ATTRIBUTE: Serializeable
class MyClass(FooBase):
// ATTRIBUTE: MyMemberAttribute
def Foo():
....
(Forgive my Python -- it's a little rusty...)
Actually, wasn't there a PEP regarding decorators?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
