Yes, it was a typo.
Even thought the function has not yet been bound to the name
"Factorial" when it calls the decorator, the function's __name__
attribute is set to it, so I use that to look up the name of the
generic.
Here''s the source for Arity:
def Arity( *pattern ):
"""A function decor
Been playing around a bit more with developing my python inference
engine, and I thought it might be of general interest (plus, I am
finding the criticism useful).
My original goal was to brush up on my math skills. Now, I've long felt
that the best way to learn a language *thoroughly* is to write
I like the decorator idea. Unfortunately, the version of Python I am
using is pre-decorator, and there are various issues involved in
upgrading on Mac OS X (due to the built-in Python 2.3 being used by the
OS itself.) I'll have to look into how to upgrade without breaking too
much...
Some further
I've been reading about how "lambda" is going away in Python 3000 (or
at least, that's the stated intent), and while I agree for the most
part with the reasoning, at the same time I'd be sad to see the notion
of "anonymous functions" go - partly because I use them all the time.
Of course, one can
Thanks for all the respones :) I realized up front that this suggestion
is unlikely to gain approval, for reasons eloquently stated above.
However, there are still some interesting issues raised that I would
like to discuss.
Let me first respond to a few of the comments:
>What's the difference be
Although I realize the perils of even suggesting polluting the Python
namespace with a new keyword, I often think that it would be useful to
consider defining an operator for testing whether or not an item is a
member of a category.
Currently, we have the 'in' operator, which tests for membership
