Raymond Hettinger wrote:
In contrast, a name like functional suggests that
some of these tools don't quite fit.
The original intent was that the functional module
become the home of typical utilities for functional style
programming. partial was there were patches (such
as 1412451) providing
Hi,
to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
module containing at the moment only the decorator decorator.
http://python.org/sf/1448297
It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which contains the
decorator object (modelled after the functional.partial
Georg Brandl wrote:
Hi,
to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
module containing at the moment only the decorator decorator.
http://python.org/sf/1448297
It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which contains the
decorator object (modelled
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote:
Hi,
to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
module containing at the moment only the decorator decorator.
Sorry, I forgot the initial comment which was meant to be Thanks for moving
this proposal forward :)
It's currently
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote:
Hi,
to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
module containing at the moment only the decorator decorator.
http://python.org/sf/1448297
It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which contains the
decorator
Georg Brandl wrote:
Also, I thought we were trying to move away from modules that shared a name
with one of their public functions or classes. As it is, I'm not even sure
that a name like decorator gives the right emphasis.
I thought about decorators too, that would make
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
...
memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
that
is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
partial would make just
[Ian Bicking]
memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
that
is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
partial would make just as much sense in functools as in functional.
Alex Martelli wrote:
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
...
memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
that
is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
[Nick Coghlan]
I agree it makes sense to have decorator, memoize, deprecated and
partial all being members of the same module, whether the name be
functools or functional (although I have a slight preference for
functools due to the parallel with itertools).
I like functools for a different
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
...
memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
that
is kind of vague in scope (though functools is
In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to add builtin @deprecated
decorator?.
Restraint please. Go easy on the decorator additions.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
On 3/12/06, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Nick Coghlan]
I agree it makes sense to have decorator, memoize, deprecated and
partial all being members of the same module, whether the name be
functools or functional (although I have a slight preference for
functools due to the
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to add builtin @deprecated
decorator?.
Restraint please.
Well, that sentence wasn't meant in the sense of we should add it but
in the sense of why shouldn't we put it in functools _if_ we add it, when
it's even suggested as a
14 matches
Mail list logo
