On Aug 10, 2004, at 1:21 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 12:07 PM 8/10/04 -0400, Chris King wrote: > >> Now, is it really that important to a user whether a method is a class >> or static method? They're all called the same way (so long as they're >> bound), and most users couldn't care less how a function is >> implemented. If the distinction is really important to the user, then >> they will presumably be prudent enough to check for this by looking >> either just below the function name (or wherever decorators end up), >> or by reading the docstring if the function author decided to document >> that. > > This doesn't apply to other decorators. For example, some decorators > turn a function into a property. Others change the (effective) call > signature. > > Indeed, staticmethod changes the call signature, since there is no > special first argument. > > In frameworks where methods can be wrapped in transactions, lock > synchronization, security checks, remote communication, etc., these > are all decorations that are potentially part of the interface and > important for the reader to know, even if they don't look at the > method body (apart from the doc string). Also, most people that call static methods or class methods probably aren't calling them bound to an *instance*. At least I know that when I use classmethods, it's usually to *create* instances. -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