RetroSearch Browse

Fri Apr 3 05:05:19 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/138991.html

On 04/03, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 02:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>> If I'm understanding PJE's main concern correctly it's that this
>> approach requires explicitly testing that the decorator has been
>> applied correctly in your automated tests every time you use it, as
>> otherwise there's a risk of a silent failure when you use the
>> decorator but omit the mandatory base class that makes the decorator
>> work correctly.
> 
> Could the decorator be designed to detect that situation
> somehow? E.g. the first time the decorated method is called,
> check that the required base class is present.

That feels like a horrible work-around.  The proper place for setup code is in the set up.

--
~Ethan

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/138991.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 487 vs 422 (dynamic class decoration)