Is it bad practise to write __all__ like that

[mark ferguson]

Thomas,

A ha! Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's nice to start the day with
learning something new.

To be honest, the initial problem was that I didn't understand the meaning
of '__all__', again probably from not working in the large with python.
After posting, I went and had another go at understanding decorators. I
think your second decorator example is the neatest one I have seen and it is
quite obvious where the value of the decorator here is. You have used a
minimal amount of code to solve a potentially major long term code
maintenance problem. I will echo Karim here, a very elegant solution.

On 29 July 2011 07:37, Thomas Rachel <
nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915 at spamschutz.glglgl.de> wrote:

> Am 28.07.2011 20:01 schrieb Ian Kelly:
>
>
>  The advantage of Thomas's decorator here is that it lets you place the
>> denotation of whether a function is exported alongside its definition,
>> whereas simply declaring the __all__ list forces you to separate them.
>>  It also avoids the problem of possibly mistyping the function's name
>> in the list.
>>
>
> Thank you. For the ones who do not like @__all__ because it might look
> ugly, here is an alternative:
>
> __all__ = []
>
> def export(obj):
>    __all__.append(obj.__name__)
>    return obj
>
> It is nearly the same, but without an extra class and with the more
> readable
>
> @export
> def func(): pass
>
>
> Thomas
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-list<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20110729/1611df02/attachment-0001.html>