Could we allow arbitrary expressions in the @expression syntax for applying decorators to functions/classes? The current grammar restriction to:

    decorator: '@' dotted_name [ '(' [arglist] ')' ] NEWLINE

is very surprising and I don't understand the real motivation.

I find it weird that you are not able to do that:

    def f():
        def g():
            def h(x):
                pass
            return h
        return g
    
    @f()()
    def i():
        pass

since you get:

        @f()()
            ^
    SyntaxError: invalid syntax

but the following is perfectly valid:

    def f():
        def g():
            def h(x):
                pass
            return h
        return g
    
    def g(x):
        def h(x):
            pass
        return g
    
    @g(f()())
    def h():
        pass

See this post for more details: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56490579

The syntax is deliberately limited. The reasons are explained at:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0318/#current-syntax
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046711.html

@Christian Heimes

> The reasons are explained at:

Yes I read that. But I am wondering if after 15 years Guido still has this "gut feeling". Because my gut feeling as a Python *user* who has discovered decorators and stumbled on this restriction was: "what?!".

What you want to write is as unreadable as it ever was.

@Guido van Rossum

> What you want to write is as unreadable as it ever was.

How is @g(f()()) more readable than @f()()? Yet the former is allowed.