[Python-Dev] Re: __metaclass__ and __author__ are already decorators

[Paul Morrow]

Bob Ippolito wrote:

> 
> On Aug 21, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Paul Morrow wrote:
> 
>> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:15 PM 8/21/04 -0400, Paul Morrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> can it be ? There's also the fact that it can't handle named 
>>>>> parameters
>>>>> like a regular function call. You can't write that :
>>>>> def foo():
>>>>>     __decoration__ = (1,1,param=True)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, we can't do that with the current decorator 
>>>> proposals either.
>>>
>>> @decoration(1,1,param=True)
>>> def foo(whatever):
>>>     pass
>>
>>
>> Ok, then whatever changes you've made to the Python system to support 
>> that would allow the same syntax to be used in what I'm suggesting.
>>
>>     def foo(whatever):
>>         __decoration__ = (1,1,param=True)
>>
>>     def decoration(decoratedFunc, a, b, param=False):
>>         __decorator__ = True
>>         __version__ = '0.1'
>>         # body of 'decoration' decorator function goes here...
> 
> 
> Congratulations, this by far the worst suggestion yet!  I'm -Inf on this :)
> 

Thanks.


> @decoration(1,1,param=True) makes no changes whatsoever to the Python 
> system.  Everything after the @ is really just an expression.  The @ 
> just implies that the result of the next class or def gets put through 
> the result of the @expression before it is thrown into the namespace.
> 

It seems that writing a decorator is going to be a bizarre experience. 
In the example, I would need to write a function named 'decoration' that 
returns a function that will recieve a function (foo) to be decorated 
and then return a function.  Does that sound about right?

What would functions like 'decoration' typically look like?  Could you 
show a short code snippet?