Bob Ippolito wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2004, at 6:15 PM, Paul Morrow wrote: > >> Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> >>> At 05:34 PM 8/21/04 -0400, Paul Morrow wrote: >>> >>>> Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>>> >>>>> At 05:15 PM 8/21/04 -0400, Paul Morrow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Christophe Cavalaria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> can it be ? There's also the fact that it can't handle named >>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>> like a regular function call. You can't write that : >>>>>>> def foo(): >>>>>>> __decoration__ = (1,1,param=True) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, we can't do that with the current decorator >>>>>> proposals either. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @decoration(1,1,param=True) >>>>> def foo(whatever): >>>>> pass >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, then whatever changes you've made to the Python system to >>>> support that would allow the same syntax to be used in what I'm >>>> suggesting. >>> >>> Huh? @decoration(1,1,param=True) is evaluated at the place where it >>> appears. The *return value* of that expression is then called, >>> passing in the foo function. In other words, the above is equivalent >>> to today's: >>> def foo(whatever): >>> pass >>> foo = decoration(1,1,param=True)(foo) >>> except that the first assignment to 'foo' doesn't happen, only the >>> second one. If the 'foo' function is a single expression, of course, >>> today you can do the straightforward: >>> foo = decoration(1,1,param=True)(lambda whatever: something) >>> So, "@x func" is effectively a macro for "func = x(func)", where >>> 'func' may be a function, or another decorator. That is: >>> @x >>> @y >>> @z >>> def foo(): >>> ... >>> is shorthand for 'foo = x(y(z(foo)))', >> >> >> Wouldn't that actually be shorthand for foo = x()(y()(z()(foo))) ? > > > No. > Ok, I see, nevermind. Thanks.
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