At 01:48 PM 4/13/04 -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > I have the impression that it is proposed that the function f will >*not* > > yet be bound to its name (f.func_name) in its environment at the time >the > > decorator is called. > >Hmm, that would be a change. Currently, staticmethod() and >classmethod() take fully formed functions as inputs. So, if your >impression is correct, It is. See PEP 318, under "Current Implementation". Also, several proposed decorators such as propget/propset/propdel and "generic" rely on this distinction for their magic. >there would be a small semantic difference >between the [classmethod] prefix and f=classmethod(f) postfix >decoration. Yes, and that's the desired semantics, as it makes possible many things that are quite awkward with the existing syntax.
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