On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:26:56 pm Simon Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Benjamin Peterson
<benja...@python.org> wrote:
> > Namespace conflict with what? I would prefer "wraps" unless it's
> > standardized as a behavior for all decorators.
>
> Having the original function available as __wrapped__ would be really
> cool, although I'm not quite sure what the behaviour should be in
> corner cases like:
>
> * The decorator returns the original function (I suppose a reference
> to itself is okay?)
There's no reason why a function can't have an attribute that refers to
the function itself. It works fine:
>>> def f():
... return f.__wrapped__
...
>>> f.__wrapped__ = f
>>>
>>> f() is f
True
But in the case of a decorator returning the original function, the
point is moot. If the original function is returned, then it hasn't
been decorated at all, so there shouldn't be a __wrapped__ attribute
added:
def decorator(func):
if not __debug__:
# Return undecorated original.
return func
@wraps(func)
def inner(*args):
print args
return func(*args)
return inner
> * The decorator returns the a function that is already decorating
> something else.
That shouldn't make any difference. Given:
@wraps(f)
def func(*args):
do_something()
return f(*args)
then func.__wrapped__ gives f. If f itself wraps (say) g, and g wraps h,
then you have:
func.__wrapped__ => f
func.__wrapped__.__wrapped__ => g
func.__wrapped__.__wrapped__.__wrapped__ => h
and so on, until you reach a function that doesn't wrap anything and
doesn't have a __wrapped__ attribute.
I'm +1 on the proposal.
--
Steven D'Aprano
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
