Decorator Base Class: Needs improvement.

[El Pitonero]

Bengt Richter wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 19:28:55 -0700, "El Pitonero" <pitonero at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >Scott David Daniels wrote:
> >> Ron_Adam wrote:
> >> > ...
> >>
> >>      def tweakdoc(name):
> >>          def decorator(function):
> >> 	    function.__doc__ = 'Tweak(%s) %r' % (name, function.__doc__)
> >> 	    return function
> >>          return decorator
> >>
> >> What is confusing us about what you write is that you are
referring
> >to
> >> tweakdoc as a decorator, when it is a function returning a
decorator.
> >
> >"Decorator factory" would be a shorter name for "a function
returning a
> >decorator".
> >
> True, but tweakdoc doesn't have to be a function, so IMO we need a
better
> name for the @-line, unless you want to use many various specific
names
> like factory. E.g.,

There are two things:

(1) The "tweadoc" object in the example, which no doubt can be called a
decorator factory.

(2) The @-line, which you called a "decorator expression" and that's
fine with me. My preference would be something like the "decorator
header". A more clear statement would be something like: a "decorator
header expression" or the "expression in the decorator header", though
your proposed "decorator expression" would be clear enough, too.

I was addressing (1). You jumped in with (2), which I was aware of and
was not dissenting.