The wrapt module I linked to (not funtools.wraps) provides all the capabilities you mention since 2013. It allows mixed use of decorators as decorator factories. It has a flat style.
There are some minor API difference between your libraries and wrapt, but the concept is very similar. Since yours is something new, I imagine you perceive some win over what wrapt does.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 9:52 AM Sylvain MARIE email@example.com wrote:
Thanks for your interest !
As you probably know, decorators and function wrappers are *completely different concepts*. A decorator can directly return the decorated function (or class), it does not have to return a wrapper. Even more, it can entirely replace the decorated item with something else (not even a function or class!). Try it: it is possible to write a decorator to replace a function with an integer, even though it is probably not quite useful :)
`decopatch` helps you write decorators, whatever they are. It "just" solves the annoying issue of having to handle the no-parenthesis and with-parenthesis calls. In addition as a 'goodie', it proposes two development styles: *nested* (you have to return a function) and *flat* (you directly write what will happen when the decorator is applied to something). -- Now about creating signature-preserving function wrappers (in a decorator, or outside a decorator - again, that's not related). That use case is supposed to be covered by functools.wrapt. Unfortunately as explained here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/308999/what-does-functools-wraps-do/5510... this is not the case because with functools.wrapt:
- the wrapper code will execute even when the provided arguments are
- the wrapper code cannot easily access an argument using its name, from
the received *args, **kwargs. Indeed one would have to handle all cases (positional, keyword, default) and therefore to use something like Signature.bind().
For this reason I proposed a replacement in `makefun`: https://smarie.github.io/python-makefun/#signature-preserving-function-wrapp... -- Now bridging the gap. Of course a very interesting use cases for decorators is to create decorators that create a signature-preserving wrapper. It is possible to combine decopatch and makefun for this: https://smarie.github.io/python-decopatch/#3-creating-function-wrappers . Decopatch even proposes a "double-flat" development style where you directly write the wrapper body, as explained in the doc.
Did I answer your questions ? Thanks again for the quick feedback ! Best,
-----Message d'origine----- De : Python-ideas firstname.lastname@example.org De la part de Steven D'Aprano Envoyé : mardi 12 mars 2019 12:30 À : email@example.com Objet : Re: [Python-ideas] Problems (and solutions?) in writing decorators
[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:36:41AM +0000, Sylvain MARIE via Python-ideas wrote:
I therefore proposed https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsma rie.github.io%2Fpython-makefun%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csylvain.marie%40s e.com%7C579232e7e10e475314c708d6a6de9d23%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae 68fef%7C0%7C0%7C636879872385158085&sdata=nB9p9V%2BJ7gk%2Fsc%2BA5%2 Fekk35bnYGvmEFJyCXaLDyLm9I%3D&reserved=0 . In particular it provides an equivalent of `@functools.wraps` that is truly signature-preserving
Tell us more about that please. I'm very interested in getting decorators preserve the original signature.
-- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Pythonfirstname.lastname@example.org
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. ______________________________________________________________________