inspect feature

Aaron "Castironpi" Brady castironpi at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 20:35:26 CEST 2008


On Oct 14, 9:42 am, George Sakkis <george.sak... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:06 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > En Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:18:53 -0300, Aaron "Castironpi" Brady
> > <castiro... at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 3:36 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> > > 42.desthuilli... at websiteburo.invalid> wrote:
> > >> I don't get what you're after ??? The decorator has full access to both
> > >> the actual params *and* the function's signature (via
> > >> inspect.getargspec). So your initial question "if you wanted a decorator
> > >> that examines the parameters to a function" seems fully answered. You
> > >> will indeed have to write a couple lines of code if you want the same
> > >> formating as the one you'd get with inspect.currentframe(), but what ?
>
> > >> FWIW, Michele Simionato's decorator module has some trick to allow for
> > >> signature-preserving decorators, so you may want to have a look - but
> > >> I'm not sure if this would solve your problem - at least in a sane way.
>
> > > It's not exactly the next Millennium problem, but there are some
> > > substantial checks you have to do on a per-parameter basis to see the
> > > same thing that a function sees, when all you have is *args, **kwargs.
>
> > > You are wrapping a function with this signature:
>
> > > def f( a, b, c= None, *d, **e ):
>
> > > You want to find out the values of 'a', 'b', and 'c' in a decorator.
> > > You have these calls:
>
> > > f( 0, 1, 'abc', 'def', h= 'ghi' )
> > > f( 0, 1 )
> > > f( 0, 1, h= 'abc' )
> > > f( 0, 1, 'abc', c= 'def' ) #raise TypeError: multiple values
>
> > > How do you determine 'a', 'b', and 'c'?
>
> > I'm afraid you'll have to duplicate the logic described here:  http://docs.python.org/reference/expressions.html#id9
> > To my knowledge, there is no available Python code (in the stdlib or
> > something) that already does that.
>
> I wrote such a beast some time ago; it's hairy but to the best of my
> knowledge it seems to reproduce the standard Python logic:http://code.activestate.com/recipes/551779/
>
> George

I didn't see a 'got a duplicate argument for keyword "d"' error, but I
can add one if I need to.

Is there some reason why the built-in behavior should not be made
available, such as it's poorly defined outside the function?  Or is it
just the fact that it's complicated that keeps it out of 'inspect'?



More information about the Python-list mailing list