dieter <die...@handshake.de> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > ... Rather, the motivation was that a complex thing, with many > > moving parts, has an unexplained implementation: a nested set of > > functions without names to explain their part in the pattern. > > In a previous reply, I have tried to explain (apparently without > success) that the "thing" is not "complex" at all
Your explanation was clear. I disagree with it; the code is not at all obvious in its intention or operation. Naming the parts descriptively, and writing a brief synopsis docstring for each function, is a way to address that. Which is my motivation for this thread. > but a simple signature transform for a decorator definitition You're making my case for me: To anyone who doesn't already know exactly what's going on, that is not at all obvious from the code as presented in the first message. > and that the nested function implementation is natural for this > purpose. The nested function implementation is not the problem, as I hope I've made clear elsewhere in this thread. -- \ “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian | `\ Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
