> > That looks like new syntax to me. > > It's the syntax for decorator functions, and it's not that new - it > cames with Python 2.4, released November 30, 2004.
After looking more carefully at your example, I don't think it is as clean and logical as the PEP 316 syntax. At first I thought that your pre and post-conditions applied to the class, but now I realize that they apply to the function. I prefer to see the conditions inside the function in the doc string. That just seems more logical to me. With all due respect, your proposal is interesting, but I think it overextends the "function decorator" idea a bit. A nit-pick I might have with the PEP 316 syntax is that I think "invariant" should be spelled out rather than abbreviated as "inv". The same might apply to "pre- condition" and "post-condition". But that's obviously no big deal. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
