RetroSearch Browse

Thu Nov 27 01:50:15 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-November/137226.html

No, that was a figure of speech. The proposed decorator returns a new
function object that references a new code object. The original function
and code object are unchanged.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>
> wrote:
> > The design just copies the code object with one flag set differently.
> Code
> > objects are immutable but they can be copied (though the interface to do
> > that is kind of hidden).
>
> Yes, but the proposal as written spoke of replacing the generator
> *function*, which has broader consequences. If it's simply replacing
> the __code__ attribute of that function, it ought to be safe, I think?
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141126/6f632877/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-November/137226.html below:

[Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479.