Bob Ippolito wrote:
...
> Sorry, but you understate the capabilities of this new syntax and
> overestimate the need for future related syntax. Try the following
> decorators in the current Python interpreter, using the clumsy def
> foo(): ... foo = decorator(foo) pattern:
Ok, let me give a total different approach that doesn't use new
syntax, just a little new semantics.
No idea whether it is better, but at least it is easy to read.
(Bob, I didn't know where to thow this in, so I used your message).
We now have:
class klass:
def foo():...
foo = decorator(foo)
Now how about this
class klass:
foo = decorator
def foo():...
baz = decorator1, decorator2
def baz(): ...
The simple idea is to change semantics that if a name already
exists before a def, it is checked whether it is a decorator
function or a tuple of these, and if so, they are called.
call-me-dumb-but-don't-call-me-perlish - ly y'rs - chris :-))
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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