Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to "add builtin @deprecated
>> decorator?".
>
> Restraint please.
Well, that sentence wasn't meant in the sense of "we should add it" but
in the sense of "why shouldn't we put it in functools _if_ we add it, when
it's even sugges
On 3/12/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Nick Coghlan]
> > I agree it makes sense to have "decorator", "memoize", "deprecated" and
> > "partial" all being members of the same module, whether the name be
> > "functools" or "functional" (although I have a slight preference for
> >
> In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to "add builtin @deprecated
> decorator?".
Restraint please. Go easy on the decorator additions.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
U
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> ...
>>> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
>>> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
>>> that
>>> is kind of vague in scope (thou
[Nick Coghlan]
> I agree it makes sense to have "decorator", "memoize", "deprecated" and
> "partial" all being members of the same module, whether the name be
> "functools" or "functional" (although I have a slight preference for
> "functools" due to the parallel with "itertools").
I like "functoo
Alex Martelli wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> ...
>> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
>> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
>> that
>> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more va
[Ian Bicking]
>> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
>> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
>> that
>> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
>> partial would make just as much sense in functools as in func
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
...
> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not
> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module
> that
> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague).
> partial would make j
Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Also, I thought we were trying to move away from modules that shared a name
>> with one of their public functions or classes. As it is, I'm not even sure
>> that a name like "decorator" gives the right emphasis.
>
> I thought about "decorators" too, that would make "decora
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
>> module containing at the moment only the "decorator" decorator.
>>
>> http://python.org/sf/1448297
>>
>> It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which conta
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
>> module containing at the moment only the "decorator" decorator.
Sorry, I forgot the initial comment which was meant to be "Thanks for moving
this proposal forward" :)
It
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to underlay my proposals with facts, I've written a simple decorator
> module containing at the moment only the "decorator" decorator.
>
> http://python.org/sf/1448297
>
> It is implemented as a C extension module _decorator which contains the
> decorator object (mo
12 matches
Mail list logo
