"Gert Cuykens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2006 09:44:48 GMT, Duncan Booth
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> @expr
>> def fn(...): ...
>>
>> is exactly equivalent to:
>>
>> def fn(...): ...
>> fn = (expr)(fn)
>>
>
> ok i did my homework reading about decorators
> http://www.python.org/doc/2.4.4/whatsnew/node6.html
>
> could it be the example above needs to be like
>
> @expr
> def fn(...): ...
>
> is exactly equivalent to:
>
> def fn(...): ...
> fn = expr(fn)
no it doesn't *need* to be like that, but it *could* be written like that.
It is true that the parentheses I used are redundant (I thought they made
my point clearer), but removing redundant parentheses doesn't actually
change the meaning at all.
In any case, either of these rewrites is an approximation. There is no
Python code you can write which is exactly equivalent to, but doesn't use,
the decorator syntax. A closer approximation would be:
If you consider:
def fn(...): ...
is equivalent to writing:
fn = new.function(somecodeobject, globals(), 'fn', (...default argument
expressions...), ...and maybe a closure...)
then:
@expr
def fn(...): ...
is equivalent to writing:
__anonymous_temp_1 = expr
__anonymous_temp_2 = new.function(somecodeobject, globals(), 'fn',
(...default argument expressions...), ...and maybe a closure...)
fn = __anonymous_temp_1(__anonymous_temp_2)
but I don't think that is really any clearer.
It does perhaps indicate the order in which things happen more clearly:
decorator expression is evaluated, then default arguments, then function is
created, then decorator is called, then finally the result is assigned to a
variable with the same name as the function.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
