[Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators (original) (raw)
Greg Ewing greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Fri Aug 6 04:15:30 CEST 2004
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com>:
That argument has been done to death several times in the last year here. Function attributes aren't a replacement for decorators.
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing in my last post that decorators should be replaced by function attributes. I was questioning the assumption that "use cases exist for long decorators, therefore any syntax for decorators needs to accommodate them".
In other words, a syntax for short decorators plus a syntax for long function arguments might be sufficient.
There might even be a proof of sorts for this: arguments to the decorator can be substituted with attributes on the function about to be decorated, which the decorator extracts.
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Call for defense of @decorators
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]