decorators ?

[km]

Hi all,
was going thru the new features introduced into python2.4 version.
i was stuck with 'decorators' - can someone explain me the need of such a thing called decorators ?
tia
KM

[Paul McGuire]

Re: decorators ?

"km" <km@mrna.tn.nic .in> wrote in message
news:mailman.69 42.1101835501.5 135.python-list@python.org ...[color=blue]
> Hi all,
> was going thru the new features introduced into python2.4 version.
> i was stuck with 'decorators' - can someone explain me the need of such a[/color]
thing called decorators ?[color=blue]
> tia
> KM[/color]

Here are some example on the Python Wiki:

http://www.python.org/moin/PythonDecoratorLibrary

I think memoize is my favorite so far.

I'm not sure if the example behavior is all that clear. For a given set of
arguments, the Memoize class keeps a dictionary of input arg values and
return values. In subsequent calls, sets of args are looked up in the
dictionary of previous calls - if the arg list is found, then the function
is bypassed, and the cached return value is returned immediately. This can
greatly speed up calls to functions that are very time-consuming, or
recursive. This is why the Wiki page lists factorial() and fibonacci()
examples. Of course, Memoize assumes that the return value is purely a
function of the input args, and not subject to any external state.

Of course, one could readily implement this behavior within the target
functions. The beauty of the decorator is that this optimization is done
*completely* outside the function itself, so the function remains fairly
pure at the application level, and does not get cluttered with variables
like "resultsCac he" and so on. Also, in the interests of maximizing reuse
and avoiding the bug-proneness of cut-and-paste, isolating Memoize into a
reusable decorator helps avoid introducing bugs (vs. hard-coding this
optimization into successive functions - did you remember to initialize the
dictionary?), and leverages any optimizations or bug-fixes.

(I focused on Memoize, but these comments apply to any of the decorators on
this wiki page.)

-- Paul

[BJörn Lindqvist]

Re: decorators ?

Some more decorator examples.

How to create abstract methods using an @absractmethod decorator:

http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus7/html/page117.html

Generics, property getters and setters. I don't know what these
decorators are supposed to do:
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~edloper/pydecorators.html -

And according to this,
http://www.prothon.org/pipermail/pro...st/003173.html,
one use of decorators is to put a functions docstring before the def
f(): line like this:

@doc("""blabla does something.""")
def blabla():

Here is one decorator for optimizing:

http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/277940

I think the essence of decorators is that it makes it possible to do
in Python what you in other languages do with method qualifiers. This
declaration in Java

public synchronized static void doStuff()

would you write in Python as

@public
@synchronized
@staticmethod
def doStuff():

I haven't seen an example of a @synchronized decorator, but I assume
it is possible. Hopefully, it is possible to create a @private
decorator which throws some kind of exception when a private method is
accessed from outside the class. If that is possible, then it would
also be nice to have a @public decorator which doesn't do anything. As
far as I know, only two decorators are included in the standard
library in Python 2.4, @staticmethod and @classmethod. That is a
little unfortunate, because many more "obvious ones" could have been
included. The devs are probably planning to correct that in the coming
versions.
That is all I know about decorators. Or rather THINK I know from
reading stuff on the internet. Please don't flame me if I'm wrong. :)

--
mvh Björn

[Jacek Generowicz]

Re: decorators ?

BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne@gmail. com> writes:
[color=blue]
> I think the essence of decorators is that it makes it possible to do
> in Python what you in other languages do with method qualifiers.[/color]

I find it fascinating that the addition of a bit of syntax sugar gives
the perception that a whole range of new and previously unthinkable
possibilities have opened themselves before us.

@X
def Y...
...


is merely syntax sugar (or syntax ammonia, for some) for


def Y...
...
Y = X(Y)

Anything you can do with decorators, you could do before (with the
exception of rebinding the __name__ of functions).

And yet, that bit of syntax sugar really _does_ make a big difference
to the lengths that people are prepared to take the possibilities that
the underlying feature affords them.

[Skip Montanaro]

Re: decorators ?


Jacek> Anything you can do with decorators, you could do before (with
Jacek> the exception of rebinding the __name__ of functions).

And while that feature was added because we realized it would be nice if the
decorated function could have the same name as the original function, it
seems like that change could stand on its own merits.

Skip

[Michael Hudson]

Re: decorators ?

Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com > writes:
[color=blue]
> Jacek> Anything you can do with decorators, you could do before (with
> Jacek> the exception of rebinding the __name__ of functions).
>
> And while that feature was added because we realized it would be nice if the
> decorated function could have the same name as the original function, it
> seems like that change could stand on its own merits.[/color]

Indeed. I'd been meaning to do it for at least a year...

Cheers,
mwh

--
Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to
crash. -- Stephen Harris
-- http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.html

[Josiah Carlson]

Re: decorators ?


Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowi cz@cern.ch> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne@gmail. com> writes:
> [color=green]
> > I think the essence of decorators is that it makes it possible to do
> > in Python what you in other languages do with method qualifiers.[/color]
>
> I find it fascinating that the addition of a bit of syntax sugar gives
> the perception that a whole range of new and previously unthinkable
> possibilities have opened themselves before us.
>
> @X
> def Y...
> ...
>
>
> is merely syntax sugar (or syntax ammonia, for some) for
>
>
> def Y...
> ...
> Y = X(Y)
>
> Anything you can do with decorators, you could do before (with the
> exception of rebinding the __name__ of functions).
>
> And yet, that bit of syntax sugar really _does_ make a big difference
> to the lengths that people are prepared to take the possibilities that
> the underlying feature affords them.[/color]


Technically, everything can be performed in assembly. The point of
syntactic sugar (or ammonia) is to make things less painful. While
everything was possible before, adding the decorators /after/ defining
the function hid the decorators, and was susceptible to mistyping.

I previously posted about Philip Eby's use of decorators in PyObjC. In
his case, it saved him from typing 40-character function names 3
times.

- Josiah

[Josiah Carlson]

Re: decorators ?


Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowi cz@cern.ch> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne@gmail. com> writes:
> [color=green]
> > I think the essence of decorators is that it makes it possible to do
> > in Python what you in other languages do with method qualifiers.[/color]
>
> I find it fascinating that the addition of a bit of syntax sugar gives
> the perception that a whole range of new and previously unthinkable
> possibilities have opened themselves before us.
>
> @X
> def Y...
> ...
>
>
> is merely syntax sugar (or syntax ammonia, for some) for
>
>
> def Y...
> ...
> Y = X(Y)
>
> Anything you can do with decorators, you could do before (with the
> exception of rebinding the __name__ of functions).
>
> And yet, that bit of syntax sugar really _does_ make a big difference
> to the lengths that people are prepared to take the possibilities that
> the underlying feature affords them.[/color]


Technically, everything can be performed in assembly. The point of
syntactic sugar (or ammonia) is to make things less painful. While
everything was possible before, adding the decorators /after/ defining
the function hid the decorators, and was susceptible to mistyping.

I previously posted about Philip Eby's use of decorators in PyObjC. In
his case, it saved him from typing 40-character function names 3
times.

- Josiah

[Daniel 'Dang' Griffith]

memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:38:46 GMT, "Paul McGuire"
<ptmcg@austin.r r._bogus_.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"km" <km@mrna.tn.nic .in> wrote in message
>news:mailman.6 942.1101835501. 5135.python-list@python.org ...[color=green]
>> Hi all,
>> was going thru the new features introduced into python2.4 version.
>> i was stuck with 'decorators' - can someone explain me the need of such a[/color]
>thing called decorators ?[color=green]
>> tia
>> KM[/color]
>
>Here are some example on the Python Wiki:
>http://www.python.org/moin/PythonDecoratorLibrary
>
>I think memoize is my favorite so far.[/color]

Memoize is certainly a readily approachable example.

But the factorial example on the wiki has a defect. It incorrectly
calculates factorial(0) as 0, when it should be 1. I don't know how
to edit the "inline" code in the wiki, but if someone out there knows
how, consider changing:

if n < 2:
return n

to:

if n < 2:
return 1

Have a nice day!
--dang

[Terry Reedy]

Re: memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)


"Daniel 'Dang' Griffith" <google0@lazytw inacres.net> wrote in message
news:1102458244 .004fc0dc548f55 36ec77f769e501f f1e@teranews...[color=blue]
> But the factorial example on the wiki has a defect. It incorrectly
> calculates factorial(0) as 0, when it should be 1.[/color]

This is a matter of definition, and definitions apparently differ. fact(0)
== 0 is a backward projection from the definition f(1) = f(2) = 1 in
1-based systems, which is the context for the rabbit problem in which the
first year is year 1, not year 0. Disagreement is not defect.

Terry J. Reedy

[Tim Peters]

Re: memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)

[Daniel 'Dang' Griffith][color=blue][color=green]
>> But the factorial example on the wiki has a defect. It incorrectly
>> calculates factorial(0) as 0, when it should be 1.[/color][/color]

[Terry Reedy][color=blue]
> This is a matter of definition, and definitions apparently differ.
> fact(0) == 0 is a backward projection from the definition f(1) = f(2)
> = 1 in 1-based systems, which is the context for the rabbit
> problem in which the first year is year 1, not year 0.
> Disagreement is not defect.[/color]

Terry, since you're talking about "the rabbit problem", are you sure
you're talking about the factorial example? It sounds like you're
talking about the Fibonacci example. I agree with Daniel about the
factorial function: there's no disagreement about 0!=1, 1!=1, 2!=2,
3!=6, 4!=24, ..., that I've ever seen. The first two terms in a
Fibonacci sequence are indeed arbitrary, though.

[Fernando Perez]

Re: memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)

Terry Reedy wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Daniel 'Dang' Griffith" <google0@lazytw inacres.net> wrote in message
> news:1102458244 .004fc0dc548f55 36ec77f769e501f f1e@teranews...[color=green]
>> But the factorial example on the wiki has a defect. It incorrectly
>> calculates factorial(0) as 0, when it should be 1.[/color]
>
> This is a matter of definition, and definitions apparently differ. fact(0)
> == 0 is a backward projection from the definition f(1) = f(2) = 1 in
> 1-based systems, which is the context for the rabbit problem in which the
> first year is year 1, not year 0. Disagreement is not defect.[/color]

No, fact(0)==1 simply because any proper definition of a factorial has to match
up with the gamma function (offset by one) at all non-negative integers. So
there's no room for any ambiguity here.

Regards,

f

[Fernando Perez]

Re: memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)

Fernando Perez wrote:
[color=blue]
> No, fact(0)==1 simply because any proper definition of a factorial has to
> match
> up with the gamma function (offset by one) at all non-negative integers. So
> there's no room for any ambiguity here.[/color]

I should have added a link to the ever-useful mathworld:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Factorial.html

This has as much detail about n! and Gamma(z) as you'll ever want to know :)

Cheers,

f

[Terry Reedy]

Re: memoize factorial example (was Re: decorators ?)


"Tim Peters" <tim.peters@gma il.com> wrote in message
news:1f7befae04 120718513e297ae 6@mail.gmail.co m...[color=blue]
> Terry, since you're talking about "the rabbit problem", are you sure
> you're talking about the factorial example? It sounds like you're
> talking about the Fibonacci example.[/color]

Of course. 0! is 1 multiplied by nothing (not 0) which is 1, just as n**0
is 1 multiplied by n 0 times and hence 1.

TJR