On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, at 22:30, Random832 wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, at 22:00, Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> > I think some idea like this might be worth proposing. the first idea
> > that comes to my mind is to allow the name of a decorator to be an
> > fstring using `@'...'` or `@"..."` syntax.
> >
> > If, for example, you have `method_type = 'class'`, then you could
> > decorate a method using `@'{method_type}method'`.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a very good example (there's no "normalmethod"
> to return no decorator, and staticmethod typically needs a different
> function signature with no self/cls)... and for any nontrivial case I
> can imagine, it's taken care of by the ability to call a function. For
> example, for your case you can simply
>
> def m(method_type):
> if method_type == 'static': return staticmethod
> elif method_type == 'class': return classmethod
> elif method_type == 'normal': return lambda f: f
> else: # do what here? are you extending with additional
> "foomethod" decorators?
>
> and then do @m(method_type).
Sorry, when posting this, I hadn't seen Yonatan Zunger's original post yet,
only this reply. I do see the utility for that suggestion, but not really for
this one allowing a decorator to be a string that will be evaluated. [and if
you *really* want yours literally, you could simply do
@eval(f'{method_type}method'), or something else in case method_type may
contain characters that are not part of an identifier.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PSD2KJ5NJMIKNWL6M3KJV3GH5C3R74BE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
