On 6 Feb 2005 20:34:22 -0800, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >General usage has "declaration" meaning "statement which does not >generate executable bytecode but merely affects the compiler". My >assertion that decorator syntax is "declarative" is therefore formally >false. I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion, but I think it worth noting that PEP318 and Guido's own discussion make it very clear that the choice of Python decorator syntax was influenced - presumable by the drawing of some analogy - to Java Annotation syntax: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/annotations.html The documentation as to Java annotations seems clear tht annotations are considered as declarative, within the context of the Java language. But also in those docs: """ Typical application programmers will never have to define an annotation type, but it is not hard to do so. """ IMO, there was that analogy as well that had some influence on the decision. It needed to be something that communicated decorators as something beyond the scope of "everyday Python". Which would mean something not too deeply embedded, which may account for the reason that the proposals with more obvious surface aesthetic appeal like the one's you refer to were rejected. Beauty of course being only skin deep. Given that the decorators had to happen when they happened (that being a separate point of contention), I happen to think Guido's choice was a good and courageous one. Art -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
