Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: stacked decorators and consolidating
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:46:38 +1300
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <bdas6gFl5t8U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <20131029115427.537e1bcd@bigbox.christie.dr> <526FF395.9040306@mrabarnett.plus.com> <mailman.1769.1383069148.18130.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net brxwHV6MsVBnv3eqXeriBg5OtOcyEeAVUewjzWKuWxuB+V9qRH
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ozZSNtJE7+PXOrxiHIQ+NM2l5SU=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Macintosh/20050711)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1769.1383069148.18130.python-list@python.org>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:57978

Tim Chase wrote:
> I'd have figured they would be associative, making the result end up
> the same either way, but apparently not.

They're not associative because function application
is not associative: f(g(x)) is not the same thing as
f(g)(x).

-- 
Greg