In a previous article, we discussed how to use the strategy pattern to dynamically change an object’s behavior at runtime. Classically, polymorphism in object-oriented design is static and achieved through inheritance; however, with the strategy pattern you can accomplish the same goal dynamically. Indeed, this is an excellent way to handle situations when you need an object to exhibit different behavior at different times. However, it’s worth noting that the strategy pattern requires mutation of the object you’re working with. By using the strategy pattern, you are necessarily changing the algorithm that an object uses for a given behavior. In some situations, it may be preferable not to mutate a given object. Or more likely, you won’t even have the option of mutating an object because it may come from a codebase over which you have no control (such as an external library). Such cases are relatively common; however, it’s still possible to enhance an immutable object’s behavior. One effective means to do so is with the decorator pattern.
The primary objection to this form is that it requires "peeking inside" the method body to determine the decorators. In addition, even though the code is inside the method body, it is not executed when the method is run. Guido felt that docstrings were not a good counter-example, and that it was quite possible that a 'docstring' decorator could help move the docstring to outside the function body.

In general, functions in Python may also have side effects rather than just turning an input into an output. The print() function is a basic example of this: it returns None while having the side effect of outputting something to the console. However, to understand decorators, it is enough to think about functions as something that turns given arguments into a value.

Component Interface: The component interface is an abstraction describing the behaviors of the components that you will eventually use in your program. Any objects that will use these components will do so through the interface, meaning that they are principally concerned with the abstraction (not the actual object). This is what allows both objects and wrapped objects to be considered to be the same type.
Pay by Experience for a Painter And Decorator has a positive trend. An entry-level Painter And Decorator with less than 5 years of experience can expect to earn an average total compensation of $44,000 based on 16 salaries provided by anonymous users. Average total compensation includes tips, bonus, and overtime pay. A Painter And Decorator with mid-career experience which includes employees with 5 to 10 years of experience can expect to earn an average total compensation of $48,000 based on 21 salaries. An experienced Painter And Decorator which includes employees with 10 to 20 years of experience can expect to earn an average total compensation of $44,000 based on 33 salaries. A Painter And Decorator with late-career experience which includes employees with greater than 20 years of experience can expect to earn an average total compensation of $50,000 based on 46 salaries.
This difference becomes most important when there are several independent ways of extending functionality. In some object-oriented programming languages, classes cannot be created at runtime, and it is typically not possible to predict, at design time, what combinations of extensions will be needed. This would mean that a new class would have to be made for every possible combination. By contrast, decorators are objects, created at runtime, and can be combined on a per-use basis. The I/O Streams implementations of both Java and the .NET Framework incorporate the decorator pattern.
Painters deal practically with pigments,[6] so "blue" for a painter can be any of the blues: phthalocyanine blue, Prussian blue, indigo, Cobalt blue, ultramarine, and so on. Psychological and symbolical meanings of color are not, strictly speaking, means of painting. Colors only add to the potential, derived context of meanings, and because of this, the perception of a painting is highly subjective. The analogy with music is quite clear—sound in music (like a C note) is analogous to "light" in painting, "shades" to dynamics, and "coloration" is to painting as the specific timbre of musical instruments is to music. These elements do not necessarily form a melody (in music) of themselves; rather, they can add different contexts to it.