Are decorators really that different from metaclasses...

Arthur ajsiegel at optonline.com
Thu Aug 26 17:23:25 CEST 2004


On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:53:51 +1000, Anthony Baxter
<anthonybaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:40:18 GMT, Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
>> >IMO, to change it inside of a function def should be (but isn't) as easy
>> >as...
>> >
>> >   >>> def foo():
>> >   ...     """ I am foo """
>> >   ...     __doc__ = __doc__ + 'indeed'
>> >
>> >Paul
>> 
>> Yes.  Not only do I follow, but I think we came to exactly the same
>> place, from very different directions, and coming from what I sense is
>> very different backgrounds.
>> 
>> Its just that I don't think many others seem to find that as
>> interesting as I happen to.
>
>Not so much that, as running out of ways to restate myself. The
>proposed syntax above still requires magic handling of double-under
>variables in a function, and a new namespace. I can't see how you can
>think that this is a _good_ thing.

Forgive me, that I am not necessarily able to grasp why it is
necessarily a bad thing. or a badder thing than other things.  But do
not discount at all your advice that we are in pie-in-the-sky land.
The weight of evidence - being the general lack of interest in this
thread, being taken into account.

But as I explained earlier, I was hoping some fortipation (or other
mojo someone might provide) might make this come together some.

Ain't to be if it ain't to be.

Art



More information about the Python-list mailing list