Yes, please get rid of this restriction. It's trivial to get around - you don't even need to define your own "pass-through", one already exists in the standard library:>>> @(lambda: [lambda x: x][0])()  File "<stdin>", line 1    @(lambda: [lambda x: x][0])()     ^SyntaxError: invalid syntax>>> from functools import partial as _>>> @_( (lambda: [lambda x: x][0])() )... def f(x): return x*x... >>> f(3)9I don't know the rational behind disallowing bar().foo(), but it is the use-case I have in mind - something like:@MainDecoratorFactory(params).tweakedDecorator(tweak_params)def f(x):  passor even@MainDecoratorFactory(params).\ tweakedDecorator(tweak_params)def f(x):  passIt should be no more controversial than chaining decorators.The alternative with the current restrictions would be tweakedDecorator(MainDecorator(params), tweak_params) which is more ugly and visually separates the "tweak" concepts.It's not appropriate to merge MainDecoratorFactory and the tweaks together: there are several MainDecoratorFactories taking care of one main concern; they don't care about the tweaks. And vice versa; the tweaks shouldn't care about the main decorators.