Op 17-03-16 om 01:31 schreef Chris Angelico: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:14 am, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Antoon Pardon >>> <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: >>>> It can be yes. Look at decorators. They don't provide functionality >>>> we wouldn't have without them. >>> Really? Okay, try implementing this without decorators: >> [...] >>> @monkeypatch >>> class Foo: >> [...] >> >> >> I think Antoon is referring to decorator *syntax*, not the concept of >> decorators in general. Decorator syntax is just syntactic sugar for: >> >> >> class Foo: >> ... >> >> Foo = monkeypatch(Foo) >> >> which has been valid all the way back to Python 1.0. >> > Yes... in theory. But try rewriting my example to avoid decorator > syntax. It won't work, because of this line: > > orig = globals()[cls.__name__] > > It depends on the decorator being run before the name actually gets > bound - which means the previous class is available to the decorator. > You can't do that without decorator syntax, or messing around with > multiple names.
So? That is an implementation detail. With a new features, functionality can now be accessible in a way it was not before the feature. It still doesn't add new functionality, which in this case was just transferring methods from one class to an other. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
