Le dimanche 19 novembre 2006 à 12:44 -0500, George Sakkis a écrit : > I understand this is not the point you're trying to make, but in such > cases I usually prefer to make @decorator be equivalent to > @decorator() by something like:
I could do that, but it's not very clean. Also it doesn't invalidate my point, since what callable() does is precisely to check that the parameter conforms to a given interface (instead of explicitly testing for the underlying implementation e.g. __call__). I'm not an interface fan at all. Simply, in some cases, it would be cleaner to check an object implements, or claims to implement, a conventional interface (which might not even involve any syntactic checks about the presence of a method), rather than testing for a specific implementation trait in the hope that it's both necessary and sufficient. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
