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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #89460 > unrolled thread

Re: Function decorator having arguments is complicated

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Function decorator having arguments is complicated Maxime S <maxischmeii@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 14:42 +0000

#89460 — Re: Function decorator having arguments is complicated

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le lun. 27 avr. 2015 à 04:39, Makoto Kuwata <kwa@kuwata-lab.com> a écrit :
>
> If function decorator notation could take arguments,
> decorator definition would be more simple:
>
>   def multiply(func, n):
>     def newfunc(*args, **kwargs):
>       return n * func(*args, **kwargs)
>     return newfunc
>
>   @multiply 4      # ex: @decorator arg1, arg2, arg3
>   def f1(x, y):
>     return x+y
>
>
> How do you think about this idea?
>

David Beazley has a nice trick [1] to allow optional argument in decorators:

def logged(func=None, level=logging.DEBUG, message=None):
    if func is None:
        return partial(logged, level=level, message=message)

    @wraps(func)
    def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
        log.log(level, message)
        return func(*args, **kwargs)
    return wrapper

I think that solve your problem nicely, and that it is quite readable.

[1] Amongst a heap of other cool tricks, in his Python Cookbook

Regards,

Maxime

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web