> No, it has always been this way round. In fact test_order was inherited
> from Guido's original version of test_decorators.py (from patch #926860)
> where it read:
>
> def test_order(self):
> class C(object):
> [funcattrs(abc=1), staticmethod]
> def foo(): return 42
> # This wouldn't work if staticmethod was called first
> self.assertEqual(C.foo(), 42)
> self.assertEqual(C().foo(), 42)
>
> (i.e. identical to the current version except for the change in
> syntax). In fact I relied on the fact that this test passed to
> convince me I had the order right! But I should have spotted the
> inconsistency between that and the documentation that I wrote for
> the reference manual.
Oops. When using a list, it makes sense to apply the decorators
left-to-right. But when using @deco, I think it makes more sense that
the decorators closer to the def are applied first. IOW the syntax is
conceptually right-recursive:
definition ::= '@' decorator definition | 'def' ...
> I'll do a patch to fix the order and the corresponding tests.
Great.
> While I'm at it, do we want to drop support for multiple decorators
> on a single line? Nobody has spoken up for it, and in fact forcing
> one-per-line would simplify the grammar (as well as making it easier
> for toy parsers to find decorators).
+1
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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