On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:03:08 PM UTC+12, Ben Finney wrote:
> There is a clever one-line decorator that has been copy-pasted without
> explanation in many code bases for many years::
>
> decorator_with_args = lambda decorator: lambda *args, **kwargs: lambda
> func: decorator(func, *args, **kwargs)
>
> My problem with this is precisely that it is clever: it explains nothing
> about what it does, has many moving parts that are not named, it is
> non-obvious and lacks expressiveness.
It is written in a somewhat roundabout way: why not just
decorator_with_args = lambda decorator, *args, **kwargs : lambda func :
decorator(func, *args, **kwargs)
? Could it be this was not valid in earlier versions of Python?
Anyway, it’s a function of a function returning a function. Example use (off
the top of my head):
my_decorator = decorator_with_args(actual_func_to_call)(... remaining args
for actual_func_to_call)
(for the original version) or
my_decorator = decorator_with_args(actual_func_to_call,... remaining args
for actual_func_to_call)
(for the simpler version). Then an example use would be
@my_decorator
def some_func...
which would call “actual_func_to_call” with some_func plus all those extra
args, and assign the result back to some_func.
> I would like to see a more Pythonic, more explicit and expressive
> replacement with its component parts easily understood.
I don’t know why this fear and suspicion of lambdas is so widespread among
Python users ... former Java/C# programmers, perhaps?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
