Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #29216
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Return-Path | <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.000 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'modify': 0.05; '*args,': 0.07; 'arguments': 0.07; 'decorator': 0.07; 'function,': 0.07; 'nested': 0.07; 'work!': 0.07; '**kwargs)': 0.09; '**kwargs):': 0.09; 'exiting': 0.09; 'function:': 0.09; 'logic': 0.09; 'lost.': 0.09; 'received:mail-vb0-f46.google.com': 0.09; 'sep': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.10; 'def': 0.10; 'subject:not': 0.11; 'receives': 0.13; 'library': 0.15; 'sat,': 0.15; '*can*': 0.16; 'c):': 0.16; 'email addr:functools.wraps(func)': 0.16; 'fancy': 0.16; 'function"': 0.16; 'functools': 0.16; 'inner(*args,': 0.16; 'lambda': 0.16; 'recipe': 0.16; 'wrapped:': 0.16; 'string': 0.17; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'certainly': 0.17; 'received:209.85.212.46': 0.18; 'module': 0.19; 'import': 0.21; 'supposed': 0.21; 'anonymous': 0.22; 'decorators': 0.22; 'doc': 0.22; 'simpler': 0.22; 'work,': 0.22; 'cc:2**0': 0.23; '15,': 0.23; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'idea': 0.24; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'am,': 0.27; 'separate': 0.27; 'functions.': 0.27; 'skip:@ 10': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'received:209.85.212': 0.28; 'all.': 0.28; 'ball': 0.29; 'email name:': 0.29; 'research.': 0.29; 'steven': 0.29; 'this.': 0.29; 'maybe': 0.29; 'fri,': 0.30; 'function': 0.30; 'could': 0.32; 'print': 0.32; 'function.': 0.33; 'utility': 0.33; 'yours,': 0.33; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'clear': 0.35; 'needed': 0.35; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'flow': 0.36; 'keeps': 0.37; 'one,': 0.37; 'does': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'quite': 0.37; 'rather': 0.37; 'received:209': 0.37; 'far': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'easier': 0.38; 'object': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'instead': 0.39; 'skip:" 10': 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'end': 0.40; 'think': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'skip:u 10': 0.60; 'is.': 0.62; 'personal': 0.62; 'necessarily': 0.63; 'more': 0.63; 'realise': 0.65; 'friendly': 0.71; 'saw': 0.75; 'you:': 0.75; '(your': 0.84; '8bit%:49': 0.84; 'actually,': 0.84; 'charset:big5': 0.84; 'existence.': 0.84; 'hunt': 0.84; 'moves': 0.84; 'approach.': 0.91; 'dare': 0.93; 'magical': 0.93 |
| DKIM-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=316HFwEbV9L6KnkxMpP8L5ffi+ZK3nXpHPtNHHGdkGU=; b=Mp/pHBieGMhuKj4IUvZMYzFzQ9AknT709Ecf0SXk/kjxUCHgxvfYbvQw2/UicSNXWY DVThJnj2AtkM5KIGvHUCiRR4kkOGc4KhflH7qq24SVtenY1xh50XrbovcaTlXhVICuWa KYr4kXe9ut77v7LtgDGMyIh2qo534FpjDfXaUmw9zvu6tKQDyhPz/QUXt1aSRKrJ6ppE jw0CxTZl+9e1v29EhgW4GsDCyAc/Kl7rwXMOcpfkxuiQ9vtyZqS/VSfqJTzITJ1MFiBm VJfm+txTNQn6RBCMkTUEk5XmgkLu7LoA4lX+GEp1FK/IehOh+kSODVv0A4ndjsl2A8zB nxRA== |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <a6de2f24-c9af-4193-8ce3-63743fe424be@googlegroups.com> |
| References | <f7e2ec78-2c4a-402e-9a90-6cf0e7e55a54@c8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com> <20120914021211.GA15642@cskk.homeip.net> <k3043s$pj$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.722.1347657439.27098.python-list@python.org> <5053c030$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <a6de2f24-c9af-4193-8ce3-63743fe424be@googlegroups.com> |
| Date | Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:04:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Decorators not worth the effort |
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
| To | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=Big5 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | quoted-printable |
| Cc | python-list@python.org |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.15 |
| Precedence | list |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.742.1347703468.27098.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 170 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1347703468 news.xs4all.nl 6876 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:51580 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:29216 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:45 AM, 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> wrote: > Steven D'Aprano於 2012年9月15日星期六UTC+8上午7時39分28秒寫道： >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:16:47 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> >> >> > If only there were a conceptually simpler way to do this. Actually, >> >> > there is. I give you: muman than humanetadecorators! >> >> [code snipped but shown below] >> >> > Which I think is certainly easier to understand than the nested >> >> > functions approach. >> >> >> >> Maybe for you, but to me it is a big ball of mud. I have no idea how this >> >> is supposed to work! At a quick glance, I would have sworn that it >> >> *can't* work, since simple_decorator needs to see multiple arguments but >> >> only receives one, the function to be decorated. And yet it does work: >> >> >> >> py> from functools import partial >> >> py> def make_wrapper(wrapper): >> >> ... return lambda wrapped: partial(wrapper, wrapped) >> >> ... >> >> py> @make_wrapper >> >> ... def simple_decorator(func, *args, **kwargs): >> >> ... print "Entering decorated function" >> >> ... result = func(*args, **kwargs) >> >> ... print "Exiting decorated function" >> >> ... return result >> >> ... >> >> py> @simple_decorator >> >> ... def my_function(a, b, c): >> >> ... """Doc string""" >> >> ... return a+b+c >> >> ... >> >> py> my_function(1, 2, 3) >> >> Entering decorated function >> >> Exiting decorated function >> >> 6 >> >> >> >> So to me, this is far more magical than nested functions. If I saw this >> >> in t requires me to hunt through your library for the "simple function >> >> buried in a utility module somewhere" (your words), instead of seeing >> >> everything needed in a single decorator factory function. It requires >> >> that I understand how partial works, which in my opinion is quite tricky. >> >> (I never remember how it works or which arguments get curried.) >> >> >> >> And the end result is that the decorated function is less debugging- >> >> friendly than I demand: it is an anonymous partial object instead of a >> >> named function, and the doc string is lost. And it is far from clear to >> >> me how to modify your recipe to use functools.wraps in order to keep the >> >> name and docstring, or even whether I *can* use functools.wraps. >> >> >> >> I dare say I could answer all those questions with some experimentation >> >> and research. But I don't think that your "metadecorator" using partial >> >> is *inherently* more understandable than the standard decorator approach: >> >> >> >> def simple_decorator2(func): >> >> @functools.wraps(func) >> >> def inner(*args, **kwargs): >> >> print "Entering decorated function" >> >> result = func(*args, **kwargs) >> >> print "Exiting decorated function" >> >> return result >> >> return inner >> >> >> >> This is no more complex than yours, and it keeps the function name and >> >> docstring. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Parameterized decorators are not much more >> >> > difficult this way. This function: >> >> [snip code] >> >> > And now we have a fancy parameterized decorator that again requires no >> >> > thinking about nested functions at all. >> >> >> >> Again, at the cost of throwing away the function name and docstring. >> >> >> >> I realise that a lot of this boils down to personal preference, but I >> >> just don't think that nested functions are necessarily that hard to >> >> grasp, so I prefer to see as much of the decorator logic to be in one >> >> place (a nested decorator function) rather than scattered across two >> >> separate decorators plus partial. Like chi fu, allow decorators to evolve upon themselves. Like simple moves flow through water and allow memorization of activity through evidence of existence. -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Python presentations Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2012-09-13 19:54 +0200
Re: Python presentations Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-09-13 18:18 +0000
Decorators not worth the effort alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-13 18:58 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2012-09-14 12:12 +1000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-13 20:25 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Dieter Maurer <dieter@handshake.de> - 2012-09-14 08:40 +0200
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-14 16:29 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-09-15 09:13 +0200
Re: Decorators not worth the effort alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-16 17:38 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-14 16:31 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-09-14 16:33 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 15:16 -0600
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-14 23:39 +0000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-15 02:45 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 06:04 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-09-18 14:16 +0200
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 23:42 -0400
Re: Decorators not worth the effort "Dieter Maurer" <dieter@handshake.de> - 2012-09-15 08:31 +0200
csiph-web