>> (Has any consideration been given to an actual metafunc mechanism
>> more directly analogous to metaclasses, that would be given the
>> *pieces* of a would-be function (name, param names, default args,
>> code body, etc), so that there would not necessarily ever be a
>> standard function object?)
Guido> Deconstructing a function like that is too invasive -- I don't
Guido> want to touch the calling sequence, for example, because it's so
Guido> performance critical. None of the people arguing for decorators
Guido> has shown a use case for that either. However, if you really
Guido> want to do that, you *can* take the function apart and construct
Guido> a new one using the 'new' module.
One thing that occurred to me is that a function's func_name attribute might
be made read-write so that decorator functions can easily make that aspect
of a function wrapper behave the same as the original function. Calling
new.function() shouldn't be required in such simple cases.
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4