On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:17:32PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
My understanding is that it would attempt to invoke __detonation_call__ (err, I mean, __decoration_call__, but just think how awesome the other would be) first, and if it can't find it, it falls back on regular __call__. That would parallel how most other things are done - repr falling back to str, iadd falling back to add, etc.
Sure, but the analogy is more like trying repr first to produce a string, and if that doesn't work, trying iter to produce a list. Function/class decoration shares little with "variable decoration" except the name and (proposed) use of the @ syntax. It seems to me that they are only the most loosely related concepts. Ricky's proposal to use a new dunder magnifies the differences and obfuscates the similarities.
That said, I still don't like the idea of decorating a bare name. A magic "assignment target" token that translates into the string form of the thing being assigned to is far more useful and far less magical.
Obviously I agree, given that I proposed a special @@ symbol to do that however Stéfane's real-world example of chaining variable decorators has forced me to take that idea seriously. @acl(READ, WRITE) @constraint(10 < _ < 100) @not_null @indexed @depends_on(whatever) @inject @... first_name: str https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DCKFMW... -- Steve