Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 05:15 PM 8/21/04 -0400, Paul Morrow wrote:
>
>> Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
>>
>>> can it be ? There's also the fact that it can't handle named parameters
>>> like a regular function call. You can't write that :
>>> def foo():
>>> __decoration__ = (1,1,param=True)
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, we can't do that with the current decorator
>> proposals either.
>
>
> @decoration(1,1,param=True)
> def foo(whatever):
> pass
>
>
Ok, then whatever changes you've made to the Python system to support
that would allow the same syntax to be used in what I'm suggesting.
def foo(whatever):
__decoration__ = (1,1,param=True)
def decoration(decoratedFunc, a, b, param=False):
__decorator__ = True
__version__ = '0.1'
# body of 'decoration' decorator function goes here...
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