[Python-ideas] setting function properties with a decorator syntax

[Arnaud Delobelle]

On 19 Mar 2010, at 03:43, Scott Dial <scott+python- 
ideas at scottdial.com> wrote:

> On 3/18/2010 10:33 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Stanek  
>> <dstanek at dstanek.com> wrote:
>>> I don't remember seeing much code using function properties. I would
>>> probably just create a new decorator for this.
>>
>> I've not either, but if we determine that this is a useful facility  
>> to
>> include in the standard library, I'd be in favor of something like
>> this:
>>
>> @setattr(printable=True)
>> def f():
>>    """Example function"""
>>
>
> For the sake of a head count, I have used function attributes for the
> purpose of memoizing computations (both return values and intermediate
> calculations). A representative example:
>
> @setattr(primes=set(), composites=set())
> def is_prime(n):
>    if n <= 0:
>        raise ValueError(n)
>    elif n == 1:
>        return True
>    elif n in is_prime.primes:
>        return True
>    elif n in is_prime.composites:
>        return False
>    for p in is_prime.primes:
>        if n % p == 0:
>            is_prime.composites.add(n)
>            return False
>    is_prime.primes.add(n)
>    return True
>
> But honestly, the biggest problem I have with this pattern is that you
> explicitly have to say the name of the function since there is no  
> "self"
> equivalent. I think it would be more maintenance-friendly to do:
>
> def _(n):
>    primes = set()
>    composites = set()
>    def is_prime(n):
>        if n <= 0:
>            raise ValueError(n)
>        elif n == 1:
>            return True
>        elif n in primes:
>            return True
>        elif n in composites:
>            return False
>        for p in primes:
>            if n % p == 0:
>                composites.add(n)
>                return False
>        primes.add(n)
>        return True
>    return is_prime
> is_prime = _()
>
> Which is to say, I would be more amenable to adding such a feature  
> if it
> was building closure. And in that usage, it would seem to be more
> generally useful and well-behaved.. outsiders don't normally modify
> closures (if you want this sort of interface, you probably should  
> define
> a class).. it allows you to avoid naming the function in the  
> function..
> and it is a much closer substitute for the default arguments kludge  
> that
> is so commonly abused.
>
> @closure(primes=set(), composites=set())
> def is_prime(n):
>    if n <= 0:
>        raise ValueError(n)
>    elif n == 1:
>        return True
>    elif n in primes:
>        return True
>    elif n in composites:
>        return False
>    for p in primes:
>        if n % p == 0:
>            composites.add(n)
>            return False
>    primes.add(n)
>    return True
>
> But, that's just my two cents.
>
> -- 
> Scott Dial
> scott at scottdial.com
> scodial at cs.indiana.edu
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

Why not just use default arguments?

Arnaud