Christopher Subich schrieb:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > I think it would be a good idea to pronounce the similarity between
> > function decorators and metaclasses. Metaclasses were once introduced
> > as an arcane art of fuzzy bearded hackers or supersmart 'enterprise
> > architects' that plan at
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to pronounce the similarity between
> function decorators and metaclasses. Metaclasses were once introduced
> as an arcane art of fuzzy bearded hackers or supersmart 'enterprise
> architects' that plan at least products of Zope size but not as a
George Sakkis schrieb:
> > 1. classes have metaclasses, functions don't have metafunctions. No one
> > gave an example for classes not handled at least as well with a metaclass.
>
> Would something like the following count ?
>
> @abstractclass
> class AbstractFrame(object):
>
> @abstractclass
Bengt Richter wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 05:35:01 GMT, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So far they are fairly equivalent. So there's not really any advantage
>>over the equivalent inline function. But I think I see what you are
>>going towards. Decorators currently must be used when a
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This possibility was discussed on the py-dev list about a year or so
>> ago.
>> The twice monthly summaries should include this topic. As I remember,
>> the
>> reason for l
"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bengt Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The binding of a class name is similar, and class decorators
> > would seem natural, i.e.,
> >
> >@cdeco
> >class Foo: pass
> > for
> >class Foo: pass
> >Foo
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 05:35:01 GMT, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bengt Richter wrote:
>> ;-)
>> We have
>
>Have we?
>
>Looks like not a lot of interested takers so far.
>
>But I'll bite. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>> So why not
>>
>> @deco
>> foo = lambda:pass
>> equivalent to
>> foo = deco(la
"Bengt Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The binding of a class name is similar, and class decorators
> would seem natural, i.e.,
>
>@cdeco
>class Foo: pass
> for
>class Foo: pass
>Foo = cdeco(Foo)
This possibility was discussed on the py-dev
Bengt Richter wrote:
> ;-)
> We have
Have we?
Looks like not a lot of interested takers so far.
But I'll bite. ;-)
> So why not
>
> @deco
> foo = lambda:pass
> equivalent to
> foo = deco(lambda:pass)
>
> and from there,
> @deco
> =
> being equivalent to
> = deco(
