New submission from Chris Angelico:
The official documentation declares an unambiguous equivalence which is not
true in some corner cases:
@deco
def f(x): pass
is not quite the same as
def f(x): pass
f = deco(f)
as the name is never bound to the undecorated function. This is what makes
@property and @prop.setter work; otherwise, the undecorated setter function
would overwrite the property, and the decoration would fail. Attached patch
loosens the wording slightly to "broadly equivalent"; this permits corner cases
to vary from the equivalence, while still retaining its simplicity for the 99%
of cases where it's correct. (Think of explaining "yield from iter" as "for x
in iter: yield x" and you have a similar near-equivalence.)
Also, class decorators aren't required to return classes. Text removed saying
that they do.
----------
assignee: docs@python
components: Documentation
files: deco-docos.patch
keywords: patch
messages: 261888
nosy: Rosuav, docs@python
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Tweak wording of decorator docos
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file42181/deco-docos.patch
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue26576>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
