On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 22:54, Mathew Elman <mathew.el...@ocado.com> wrote: > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > > Again, I am not pro this idea, just answering the questions you're asking > > > as I see them :) > > Yeah. I think you're doing a great job of showing why this is a bad idea :) > > I do think the desire to fix the "wrapper not needing to know the defaults of > wrapped" problem is admirable. > Is this the right approach? No, I think not.
Wrapper not needing to know the defaults of the wrapped can be solved with *a,**kw. This modifies the problem into "callers of the wrapper now don't know anything about the signature". I'd rather look into ways of solving that problem instead - ways of taking a function signature, making specific changes to it (usually adding and/or removing args, but maybe other changes), and then making that your declared signature. At the moment, it's only possible to copy a signature as is (with functools.wraps() and equivalents). ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/66RPVNZGZS5BLYNNVGPTCHOHXDFMLO2L/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
