> However, it does not give > you any clue what the decorator actually *does*, that's why I don't > like it. People would declare any decorator using @decorator, without > thinking whether they actually need to make that declaration. In my opinion, I don't care what is behind the scene. If @decorator syntax transform the function into a decorator, all is good. > By > design, any function (or, any callable for that matter) can serve > as a decorator, so having a declaration for it might actually add > confusion. > Not any function can act as an usefull decorator, in my opinion. It should do something useful around the concept of callabale object. That's why it seems for me more like a syntax sugar than an algorihm construct. >
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