On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:47 PM, Christian Tismer wrote: > 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 :-)) That's too magical for me, and it means I have to spell out the name of the function (which may be quite long) twice.. which is better than three times, but not as good as once. -bob
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