> From: Kirby Urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > @simpson > > def g(x): return x*x > > > > >>> g(0, 3) > > 9.0000000000000036 > > My resistance to decorators is not unrelated to the fact that I don't seem > capable of getting my mind around them. >
Hi Art -- Actually, I'm with you. The above use is maybe more an example of how *not* to use them. I mean, the function g has a perfect right to exist with its own name, but here gets rebound to another function with its own arguments. The original g is gone, unless we kept a copy. The syntax is equivalent too: g = simpson(g) nothing more. But then simpson, which consumes g, also spits back defint (i.e. is a factory for producing functions), which defint here gets rebound to g, committing g to oblivion. Again, I think you're probably right, that this particular example is perverse. Edu-sig is a scratch pad for bad ideas too. :-D The main reason Guido wanted them was to put something critical about a function at the very top, not after a page of code. But here, my g is a one liner. It makes more sense to just write: def g(x): return x*x intg = simpson(g) dg = derivative(g) That'd keep g around, and give us these new other functions to play with too (I *do* think that taking a function as an argument and spitting one back *is* "the right thing" to do in this context i.e. is mathematically on target -- but decorators?... no, probably not). Now, if g(x) really *did* go on for 30-40 lines, OK, then maybe a decorator adds to readability. Something to think about. Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
