A decorator syntax not yet mentioned (I think!)
paolo_veronelli at yahoo.it
Thu Aug 12 21:52:38 CEST 2004
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:32:32 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> paolo veronelli wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:40:32 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com>
>> class Klass:
>> def meth0(x):
>> return x
>> mutate meth0:
>> mutate Klass.meth0:
>> reads good to me.
> This has the disadvantage of repeating the function name. I know
> you call it an advantage... but arguably the biggest part of
> the whole decorator "argument" revolves around whether or not
> it's critical to put the decorator right up above the "def" so
> that it can't be missed. If the method you describe above was
> deemed acceptable, then I think we'd be sticking with the
> current approach that just reads "func = decorate(func)".
This 'old' method doesn't allow to prepone it,I think a statement was the
way to allow this ,but why impone it?
is acceptable but accept everywhere statements like
is the minimum on the pythonic way.
....lotta dura per la verdura
More information about the Python-list