[Python-Dev] decorator module patch

[Georg Brandl]

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>     ...
>>> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
>>> so much.  functools is similarly named to itertools, another module  
>>> that
>>> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
>>> partial would make just as much sense in functools as in functional.
>> 
>> Couldn't we merge functools and functional into just one (user- 
>> visible) module? The distinction between what goes into one vs the  
>> other is exceedingly subtle and poor users will be guessing as to  
>> what's where. If we need a mixed module with something in C and  
>> something in Python, we can do it the usual way, func.py wrapping  
>> _func.pyd (or .so or whatever)...
> 
> 
> I agree it makes sense to have "decorator", "memoize", "deprecated" and 
> "partial" all being members of the same module, whether the name be 
> "functools" or "functional" (although I have a slight preference for 
> "functools" due to the parallel with "itertools").

+1 from me. I'll happily make the according changes if that reaches a consensus.

> On the question of whether or not deprecated fits in as a function tool, I 
> know I'd tend to only use it on functions (to deprecate a class, I'd simply 
> decorate the class's __init__ or __new__ method).

I suppose it would be okay, since as a decorator it can only be applied to
functions.

In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to "add builtin @deprecated decorator?".

Cheers,
Georg