Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.005 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'tests.': 0.07; 'mess': 0.09; 'messing': 0.09; 'subject:skip:c 10': 0.09; 'def': 0.12; 'consolidate': 0.16; 'from:addr:mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; 'from:name:mrab': 0.16; 'lambda': 0.16; 'message-id:@mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'preexisting': 0.16; 'received:84.93': 0.16; 'received:84.93.230': 0.16; 'fix': 0.17; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'decorators': 0.24; 'passes': 0.24; 'fine': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'pass': 0.26; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'tim': 0.29; 'that.': 0.31; 'chase': 0.31; 'yields': 0.31; 'quite': 0.32; 'could': 0.34; 'something': 0.35; 'received:84': 0.35; 'sequence': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'results.': 0.60; 'different': 0.65; 'header:Reply-To:1': 0.67; 'reply-to:no real name:2**0': 0.71; 'around,': 0.84; 'reply-to:addr:python.org': 0.84 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=PIY2p5aC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:117 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=05MOGALpfCEA:10 a=aHz5RT5FWpoA:10 a=ihvODaAuJD4A:10 a=OUOv7kDek9cA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=8AHkEIZyAAAA:8 a=zsEN09S7SQIA:10 a=g47lRzkD8ID2y8H7CVkA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 X-AUTH: mrabarnett:2500 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:42:45 +0000 From: MRAB User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: stacked decorators and consolidating References: <20131029115427.537e1bcd@bigbox.christie.dr> In-Reply-To: <20131029115427.537e1bcd@bigbox.christie.dr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: python-list@python.org List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1383068572 news.xs4all.nl 15928 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:38174 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:57941 On 29/10/2013 16:54, Tim Chase wrote: > I've got some decorators that work fine as such: > > @dec1(args1) > @dec2(args2) > @dec3(args3) > def myfun(...): > pass > > However, I used that sequence quite a bit, so I figured I could do > something like > > dec_all = dec1(args1)(dec2(args2)(dec3(args3))) > > to consolidate the whole mess down to > > @dec_all > def myfun(...): > pass > > However, this yields different (test-breaking) results. Messing > around, I found that if I write it as > > dec_all = lambda fn: dec1(args1)(dec2(args2)(dec3(args3)(fn))) > > it works and passes all preexisting tests. > > What am I missing that would cause this difference in behavior? > If you apply the stacked decorators you get: myfun = dec1(args1)(dec2(args2)(dec3(args3)(myfun))) If you apply dec_all you get: myfun = dec1(args1)(dec2(args2)(dec3(args3)))(myfun) See the difference? You need the lambda to fix that.