Call for signatories for J2

[Paul McGuire]

"Michael Sparks" <michaels at rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cgkvtr$5l1$1 at nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
>
> I suppose instead I could've had:
>
> def identity(actualFunc):
>    def decorate(func):
>       return actualFunc(func)
>    return decorate
>
> class Foo:
>    @staticmethod
>    @identity((memoise,esiomem)[x==1])
>    def Hoo(Who, *args):
>       print "Yoo", Who
>
> Which is nicer, but still pretty hideous. I'd agree that the preceding
> if statement approach is better than a conditional expression.
>

On the contrary, I think it likely that, in the event a module of standard
decorators is eventually provided (I thought I heard something like this in
some prior thread, perhaps on python-dev), that there will need to be some
flavors of nullDecorator such as unchanged and disabled below (I think I
have the decorator syntax down, if not I hope you get the idea):

def unchanged(func):
    "This decorator doesn't add any behavior"
    return func

def disabled(func):
    "This decorator disables the provided function, and does nothing"
    def emptyFunc(*args,**kargs):
        pass
    return emptyFunc

# define this as equivalent to unchanged, for nice symmetry with disabled
enabled = unchanged


Now you could do something like:

globalEnableFlag = True

@( (disabled,enabled)[globalEnableFlag ] )
def specialFunctionFoo()
    pass

or

using:
    (disabled,enabled)[globalEnableFlag ]
def specialFunctionFoo()
    pass



-- Paul