On 31 January 2017 at 13:05, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, at 02:32 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think the explicit invocation is such a big deal
>> to need a standardized decorator in the stdlib.
>
> +1. It's one line either way, and the explicit call to super() seems
> clearer for people reading the code.
I agree that the explict call to super() is clear and concise enough
- moreover you are in full control of
where to call, plus what parameters to forward.
BUT - no, it is _not_ an easy decorator to craft - and I don't think
it can be made to work
cleanly without depending on implementation details of cPython.
I've been hitting the Python shell for 40+ minutes now, trying to get,
in pure Python, a way
for a method decorator to get a reference to the superclass in the way
"super" does - it is not feasible
without a metaclass. (I mean...it may be feasable, but one will be
tough - one does not have a reference
to the superclasses inside a class body as it is being parsed - I
tried to trick the Python runtime into
creating an empty __class__ cell in the decorator body for a decorator
defined outside the class, and have
that filled in, but it does not work as well).
Still, such @pre_super and @post_super decorators might be something
cute to have around - and
can't be made in a trivial way either on the code base or on a
pure-python 3rd party package.
I would say I am +0 to "+0.5" on them.
js
-><-
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
