On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:04:57 +0200, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I followed that part. The part that I'm having problems with is the >> first nested function get's the argument for the function name without >> a previous reference to the argument name in the outer frames. So, a >> function call to it is being made with the function name as the >> argument, and that isn't visable so it looks as if it's magic. > >No, its not - but I stepped into that trap before - and thought its magic :) > >The trick is to know that > > - a decorator is a callable Strictly speaking, UIAM "deco" in @deco is a non-general very-limited-syntax expression that should evaluate to a callable. > - get passed a callable > - has to return a callable That last is a "should" ;-) Actually, you can abuse the def just to provide a binding name whose associated function is otherwise ignored (other than syntax check and compilation ), e.g., >>> def maverick(f): return 'maverick' ... >>> @maverick ... def foo(): pass ... >>> foo 'maverick' Or >>> @str ... def foo(): pass ... >>> foo '<function foo at 0x02EE8D14>' Note the quotes ;-) >>> type(foo) <type 'str'> Just being picky about absolute statements ;-) Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
