At 03:09 PM 3/30/2006 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: >Well, here's how my use case would look if I had >class decorators: > > @IOClass > class MyClass: > ... > >Does that count? My decorator wouldn't need any >arguments, because it looks inside the class for >all the information it needs. [1] > >That's actually a general solution to Phillip's >concern: the decorator can always look for attributes >in the class (or the class's __dict__ if you don't >want them inherited) for large amounts of information >that wouldn't comfortably fit up the top. That's >an extra degree of freedom that we don't have with >functions. I fail to see how this is an improvement. It sounds like the worst of all possible worlds to me -- *much* worse than the status quo. I use class decorators to declare metadata *about* attributes, so having to add a bunch of attributes for that *and* having to stick a funny hat on top of the class is definitely not an improvement for me. Are you actually *using* this IOClass thing, or is this just a hypothetical proposal?
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