问题描述
我一直非常感兴趣地关注装饰者辩论，并且花了相当长的时间来理解装饰者的意思。问题的一个问题是，Decorator模式更像是一个Unix管道而不是
它是PEP 318所称的装饰器。经典装饰器是运行时的，而不是定义时间，并且对基本功能没有破坏性。
PEP 318装饰器定义时间并且是对基础
函数的破坏性更改。例如，GoF书清楚地表明装饰者可能会在不影响基础课程的情况下添加或删除。
我个人认为这令人困惑重用装饰器名称为
不是经典装饰的东西。我也同意很多
评论，建议的语法并没有说明什么是
on是定义函数的一个有限转换。
Arien
I''ve been following the decorator debate with some interest, and it''s taken
me a reasonably long time to understand what is meant by a decorator. One
of the issues is that the Decorator pattern is more like a Unix pipe than
it is what PEP 318 calls a decorator. The classic decorator is run-time,
rather than define time, and is non-destructive to the base function. The
PEP 318 decorator is define time and is a destructive change to the base
function. For instance, the GoF book makes it clear that decorators may be
added or removed without affecting the underlying class.
I personally think it''s confusing to reuse the "Decorator" name for
something that is not a classic decorator. I also agree with the many
comments that the proposed syntax does not make it clear that what is going
on is a destuctive transformation of the defined function.
Arien
推荐答案
当前讨论中使用的术语装饰器来自编译器
写作。你有一个语法''树''，它''装饰''带有额外的
属性。
Daniel
The term decorator as used in the current discussion comes from compiler
writing. You have a syntax ''tree'' which gets ''decorated'' with additional
attributes.
Daniel
这篇关于PEP 318装饰器不是装饰器的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！