RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 25 20:43:27 EDT 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045618.html

"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes:

>    +classmethod
>    +attrs(spam="fidget")
>    def foo(...):
>        ...
>
>    [classmethod(), attrs(spam="fidget")]
>    def foo(...):
>        ...
>
>    ~classmethod
>    ~attrs(spam="fidget")
>    def foo(...):
>        ...
>
>    -classmethod
>    -attrs(spam="fidget")
>    def foo(...):
>        ...
>
>    All of these are possible, and each likely to have *some*
>    proponents.  Oh, and let's not forget the question of application
>    order of the decorations.  :)  I personally favor a(b(c(...)))
>    ordering for decorations that are listed before the 'def', even
>    though I favor a(), b(), c() ordering for decorations that come
>    after.

I don't think any of these syntaxes allow classmethod to remain what
it is, a "regular" function... not that I consider it a prerequisite
or anything.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045618.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: decorators and 2.4