| 00:00 | <littledan> | All of the decorators serve the same purpose as a keyword might. There was a strong sentiment in the past by some committee members that once Decorators is at Stage 4 we should avoid adding new keywords for things if a decorator would suffice. While I'm not sure I 100% agree, decorators could be used for this. |
| 00:02 | <rbuckton> | That's fair, though I'll admit that in the TS experiment I'm using decorators so that I can use
|
| 00:04 | <rbuckton> | So I'd argue that there aren't technical reasons why decorators won't work, at least not with the origin trial. |
| 00:19 | <rbuckton> | Let me walk that last statement back somewhat. Its technically feasible to implement using decorators, but may not have intended performance characteristics due to potential limitations in static analysis. |
| 14:53 | <Mathieu Hofman> | The biggest complication I see with piggy-backing on the class syntax is the same issue we keep running into: how do you connect a local behavior to a definition introduced by another thread. At the end of the day, class creates a local definition, which seem incompatible with attaching behavior, at least without introducing new syntax. |