From 6cafececbf4aaccc2edbefa9298ed54da27dadda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Berker Peksag Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:17:21 +0300 Subject: Issue #26576: Clarify that the @deco syntax is not always an equivalent of f = deco(f) Patch by Chris Angelico. --- Doc/reference/compound_stmts.rst | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Doc/reference/compound_stmts.rst b/Doc/reference/compound_stmts.rst index 2469422..88b94ea 100644 --- a/Doc/reference/compound_stmts.rst +++ b/Doc/reference/compound_stmts.rst @@ -503,11 +503,13 @@ are applied in nested fashion. For example, the following code :: @f2 def func(): pass -is equivalent to :: +is roughly equivalent to :: def func(): pass func = f1(arg)(f2(func)) +except that the original function is not temporarily bound to the name ``func``. + .. index:: triple: default; parameter; value single: argument; function definition @@ -638,14 +640,13 @@ Classes can also be decorated: just like when decorating functions, :: @f2 class Foo: pass -is equivalent to :: +is roughly equivalent to :: class Foo: pass Foo = f1(arg)(f2(Foo)) The evaluation rules for the decorator expressions are the same as for function -decorators. The result must be a class object, which is then bound to the class -name. +decorators. The result is then bound to the class name. **Programmer's note:** Variables defined in the class definition are class attributes; they are shared by instances. Instance attributes can be set in a -- cgit v0.12