Are decorators really that different from metaclasses...

[Paul Morrow]

Paul Morrow wrote:

> Anthony Baxter wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:10:13 -0400, Paul Morrow <pm_mon at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, in the following function def, the comments specify (what I
>>> believe is) the author's intention behind each assignment.
>>>
>>>    def circu(diameter):
>>>       """Info about circu."""        # defines circu.__doc__
>>>       __author__ = 'Paul Morrow'     # defines circu.__author__
>>>       __features__ = memoized        # defines circu.__features__
>>>       pi = 3.14                      # local variable definition
>>>       return pi * diameter
>>
>>
>>
>> Not in any Python I know of. I look at that and I think "oo, local 
>> variables".
>> That you have a different belief doesn't make it right - I remain
>> _extremely_ unconvinced.
>>
>> Anthony
> 
> 
> My belief doesn't make it right, that's true.  But I think that a 
> preponderance of supporting evidence does.
> 
> Have you seen a significant number of cases where a function uses 
> __xxx__ attributes as local variables?  Have you seen any?
> 
> Can you craft a function definition that uses __xxx__ attributes as 
> local variables, where the majority of experienced Pythonistas would 
> agree that the double underscores are warranted?
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

Ugh... Sorry, I wrote that too hastily.  Let me restate.

Have you seen a significant number of cases where a function uses
__xxx__ names for local variables?  Have you seen any?

Can you craft a function definition that uses __xxx__ names for
local variables, where the majority of experienced Pythonistas would
agree that the double underscores are warranted?

Paul