On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going back to that, I don't see why something like
> a = Timer(time_consuming_function)()
> shouldn't actually provide the semantics wanted for
> @Timer
> a = time_consuming_function()
>
that was my first thought on this thread -- but it's not so simple.
decorators work on functions (and classes) because they are special
statements that both create an object and bind a name, so:
@a_decorator
def a_function():
...
is the same as:
def a_function():
...
a_function = a_decorator(a_function).
So we *could* have decoration syntax work for a certain subset of
statements of the form:
@a_decorator
a_name = <something>
would mean:
a_name = <something>
a_name = a_decorator(a_name)
but that that would only work for simple assignments and I don't think it
would work for the case at hand, as <something> would get evaluated before
the reassignment.
So I'm not sure what it *should* mean that would be useful.
-CHB
My preference is for code that's easier to read rather than quicker to
> type. It's said that easy reading is hard writing.
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/05/hard-writing/
>
> I'm also reminded of Einstein's (or is it?) Everything Should Be Made as
> Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler.
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
>
> --
> Jonathan
>
--
Christopher Barker, PhD
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DWVJNYAWNSNLGW4TCIHDKYUTJYS7MC2B/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
