Ximin Luo added the comment:
Yes, please get rid of this restriction. It's trivial to get around - you don't
even need to define your own "pass-through", one already exists in the standard
library:
>>> @(lambda: [lambda x: x][0])()
File "<stdin>", line 1
@(lambda: [lambda x: x][0])()
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> from functools import partial as _
>>> @_( (lambda: [lambda x: x][0])() )
... def f(x): return x*x
...
>>> f(3)
9
I don't know the rational behind disallowing bar().foo(), but it is the
use-case I have in mind - something like:
@MainDecoratorFactory(params).tweakedDecorator(tweak_params)
def f(x):
pass
or even
@MainDecoratorFactory(params).\
tweakedDecorator(tweak_params)
def f(x):
pass
It should be no more controversial than chaining decorators.
The alternative with the current restrictions would be
tweakedDecorator(MainDecorator(params), tweak_params) which is more ugly and
visually separates the "tweak" concepts.
It's not appropriate to merge MainDecoratorFactory and the tweaks together:
there are several MainDecoratorFactories taking care of one main concern; they
don't care about the tweaks. And vice versa; the tweaks shouldn't care about
the main decorators.
----------
nosy: +xl269
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue19660>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
