Georg Brandl wrote:
to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator module containing at the moment only the "decorator" decorator.
It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which contains the decorator object (modelled after the functional.partial object) and a Lib/decorator.py to allow further decorators added as Python code.
Comes with docs and unit test.
Given that @decorator is a definition time only operation to modify a function's __name__, __doc__ and __dict__ attributes, and doesn't actually introduce any extra levels of run-time nesting to function calls, I'm not clear on why you bothered with a hybrid implementation instead of sticking with pure Python.
(To clarify what I mean: using the example in the doc patch, the extra layer of run-time nesting from @decorator's wrapper function applies only to the @logged decorator, not to the function 'print_nested'. If an application has a decorated function definition in a performance critical path, a little bit of extra overhead from @decorator is the least of its worries.)
Also, I thought we were trying to move away from modules that shared a name with one of their public functions or classes. As it is, I'm not even sure that a name like "decorator" gives the right emphasis.
In general, decorators belong in the appropriate domain-specific module (similar to context managers). In this case, though, the domain is the manipulation of Python functions - maybe the module should be called "metafunctions" or "functools" to reflect its application domain, rather than the coincidental fact that its first member happens to be a decorator.