Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #29194

RE: Decorators not worth the effort

Show all headers | View raw

Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:

[snip]

> Ultimately, the goal is to have something like
> 
> @timeout(2)
> def doAction1
> 
> @timeout(4)
> def doAction2

[snip]

> Here's Steven example:
> 
> # Untested!
> def timeout(t=15):
>     # Decorator factory. Return a decorator to actually do the work.
>     if FPGA:
>         t *= 3
>     def decorator(func):
>         @functools.wraps(func)
>         def inner(self, timeout):
>             self.sendCmd("bootMe", timeout=t)
>         return inner
>     return decorator
> 
> I can assure you, that for some python users, it's is not easy to understand
> what it does, this function returning a function which returns another
> (wrapped) function. It requires some effort.
> 

I think it would help if it was renamed to set_timeout. And I would 
not expect the Python user to need to understand how it *works*, just 
to recognize what it *does* when it is used. I may not understand list's 
sort method internals (beyond the use of timsort), but I know how to 
use it to sort a list as I want. That is usually all I need.
 

For example, your colleagues just need to understand that the below
decorator is setting a timeout for the function.

@set_timeout(min=15)
def some_function():
    '''blah'''
      <code> 


One minor note, the style of decorator you are using loses the docstring
(at least) of the original function. I would add the @functools.wraps(func) 
decorator inside your decorator.

This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Decorators not worth the effort Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2012-09-14 11:28 +0200
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-14 11:26 +0000
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 15:12 +0100
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 00:41 +1000
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 17:15 +0100
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 03:30 +1000
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-09-18 13:19 +0000
        Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-18 23:25 +1000
          Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
          Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
    RE: Decorators not worth the effort "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-09-14 23:14 +0000
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-14 12:01 +0000
    Re: Decorators not worth the effort Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2012-09-14 08:06 -0500
      Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-14 18:13 -0700
  Re: Decorators not worth the effort Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com> - 2012-09-14 13:49 +0200

csiph-web