[Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479. (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Nov 27 02:11:14 CET 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
A decorator with a side effect elsewhere (like the route registrations) is acceptable; one with a side effect on the decorated function is questionable, and instead the decorator should behave "functionally", i.e. return a new object instead.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > Well, that's just a general problem with decorator ordering.
Indeed. I was hoping it could be avoided in this instance by just altering code on an existing function, but if that's not possible, we fall back to what is, after all, a known and documented concern. 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/20141126/12dc1076/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479.
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Please reconsider PEP 479.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]