Are decorators really that different from metaclasses...

Arthur ajsiegel at optonline.com
Thu Aug 26 18:29:05 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.

Googling on "function namespace" is interesting.

Subject to my interpretation of what I am accessing:

Common Lisp has 'em, Scheme don't.

Talked about a lot in the context of XML in ways I am not sure are
relevant.

Nested scopes is the beginning of their introduction into Python - as
I am reading a cite from Dive Into Python.  So of course what I have
been driving at all along, is some extension to the the nested scope
mechanism.  Yes. I'm talking through my backside.  Darts at the wall
language design, I call it.

Art




More information about the Python-list mailing list