@decorator syntax is sugar, but for what exactly? (decorator libraries).
roy at panix.com
Sun Aug 8 16:19:19 CEST 2004
In article <mailman.1359.1091973019.5135.python-list at python.org>,
Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Speaking of libraries, Dan Bishop posted some interesting example of
> > @memoize and @printreturns utility wrappers. This leads me to think
> > that a good way to leverage the idea of decorators would be a module of
> > common utility functions which could be used as decorators by anybody.
> > I'll call the module martha (since it supplies things used for
> > decorating). Does the proposed mechanism support something like (to use
> > one of Dan's exmaples, written with two different syntaxen):
> That might happen, but it's unlikely for 2.4. Give people time to use the new
> tools, find out what works well and not so well, and standardise those.
I think you missed the gist of my question, which is probably my fault
for wrapping it up (decorating it?) with a lot of other peripheral
The key question is whether the decorator mechanism would allow such a
thing? All of the examples I've seen have the decorator defined right
before it's used, and having a simple name. I'm guessing that the real
syntax is @<callable>, and that any expression that evaluations to a
callable object is kosher after the "@"? So, any of the following would
be syntactically correct:
def foo (x):
# don't know why you would want to do this, but I'm
# exploring the edges of the envelope.
def decorator1 ():
def decorator2 ():
decorators = [decorator1, decorator2]
def getDecorator (i):
return decorators [i]
def myFunction ():
More information about the Python-list