Charlie Moad wrote:
> On 9/15/06, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Moad wrote:
>>
>>>> Take away decorator support and you'll lose at least this Python
>>>> programmer...
>>>> Decorators and attributes have at least some commonality, which is why
>>>> this syntax ended up in Python in the first place...
>>>> Allowing decorator syntax in places CPython doesn't is better than not
>>>> allowing it where it does...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So it sounds like people want decorator syntax for attributes. Would
>>> it be sufficient to check for inheritance from System.Attribute to
>>> distinguish the two?
>>>
>> Sounds very good.
>>
>>
>>> Also attributes being classes and decorators
>>> functions might help.
>>>
>
>
>> Can't CPython decorators also be classes (I haven't tried this) ?
>>
>
> Callable classes I suppose....
>
(Oops... put my sig in the middle of the code.)
You mean instances...
I meant something like this, which works in CPython and is a good way of
implementing the descriptor protocol :
class DecoratorClass(object):
def __init__(self, function):
self.function = function
def __call__(self, *args, **keywargs):
print 'called'
return self.function(*args, **keywargs)
@DecoratorClass
def function(*args):
print args
function('hello')
Provide '__get__' and friends to implement the descriptor protocol on a
function. My guess is that this is pretty much how class methods become
bound methods on instances.
Michael Foord
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@lists.ironpython.com
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/448 - Release Date: 14/09/2006
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
