In Python 2.4a3 (to be released this Thursday), everything remains as currently in CVS. For 2.4b1, I will consider a change of @ to some other single character, even though I think that @ has the advantage of being the same character used by a similar feature in Java. It's been argued that it's not quite the same, since @ in Java is used for attributes that don't change semantics. But Python's dynamic nature makes that its syntactic elements never mean quite the same thing as similar constructs in other languages, and there is definitely significant overlap. Regarding the impact on 3rd party tools: IPython's author doesn't think there's going to be much impact; Leo's author has said that Leo will survive (although it will cause him and his users some transitional pain). I actually expect that picking a character that's already used elsewhere in Python's syntax might be harder for external tools to adapt to, since parsing will have to be more subtle in that case. But I'm frankly undecided, so there's some wiggle room here. I don't want to consider further syntactic alternatives at this point: the buck has to stop at some point, everyone has had their say, and the show must go on.
I am a fully qualified painter and decorator and pride myself on offering a hassle free and affordable service where the customer’s needs always take priority, as do excellent quality workmanship and operating to modern standards. We are confident that we can meet all your requirements on your next painting and decorating project and also exceed your expectations when it comes to quality and affordable painters and decorators in Crook.
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.

A figure painting is a work of art in any of the painting media with the primary subject being the human figure, whether clothed or nude. Figure painting may also refer to the activity of creating such a work. The human figure has been one of the contrast subjects of art since the first stone age cave paintings, and has been reinterpreted in various styles throughout history.[38] Some artists well known for figure painting are Peter Paul Rubens, Edgar Degas, and Édouard Manet.

The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object statically, or in some cases at run-time, independently of other instances of the same class, provided some groundwork is done at design time. This is achieved by designing a new Decorator class that wraps the original class. This wrapping could be achieved by the following sequence of steps:
Overall unfamiliarity with the concept. For people who have a passing acquaintance with algebra (or even basic arithmetic) or have used at least one other programming language, much of Python is intuitive. Very few people will have had any experience with the decorator concept before encountering it in Python. There's just no strong preexisting meme that captures the concept.
The current method for transforming functions and methods (for instance, declaring them as a class or static method) is awkward and can lead to code that is difficult to understand. Ideally, these transformations should be made at the same point in the code where the declaration itself is made. This PEP introduces new syntax for transformations of a function or method declaration.

Just take a look at the code again. In the if/else clause we are returning greet and welcome, not greet() and welcome(). Why is that? It’s because when you put a pair of parentheses after it, the function gets executed; whereas if you don’t put parenthesis after it, then it can be passed around and can be assigned to other variables without executing it. Did you get it? Let me explain it in a little bit more detail. When we write a = hi(), hi() gets executed and because the name is yasoob by default, the function greet is returned. If we change the statement to a = hi(name = "ali") then the welcome function will be returned. We can also do print hi()() which outputs now you are in the greet() function.

Ink paintings are done with a liquid that contains pigments and/or dyes and is used to color a surface to produce an image, text, or design. Ink is used for drawing with a pen, brush, or quill. Ink can be a complex medium, composed of solvents, pigments, dyes, resins, lubricants, solubilizers, surfactants, particulate matter, fluorescers, and other materials. The components of inks serve many purposes; the ink’s carrier, colorants, and other additives control flow and thickness of the ink and its appearance when dry.


Two decorators (classmethod() and staticmethod()) have been available in Python since version 2.2. It's been assumed since approximately that time that some syntactic support for them would eventually be added to the language. Given this assumption, one might wonder why it's been so difficult to arrive at a consensus. Discussions have raged off-and-on at times in both comp.lang.python and the python-dev mailing list about how best to implement function decorators. There is no one clear reason why this should be so, but a few problems seem to be most divisive.

Dougie is a Peebles based Painter and Decorator.  He prides himself on reliability, dedication and to providing customers with a comprehensive range of services with best quality preparation and finishes.  Dougie has over 30 years decorating experience covering  Peebles and surrounding areas and would be delighted to advise and assist with all your decoration needs.


The discussion continued on and off on python-dev from February 2002 through July 2004. Hundreds and hundreds of posts were made, with people proposing many possible syntax variations. Guido took a list of proposals to EuroPython 2004 [7], where a discussion took place. Subsequent to this, he decided that we'd have the Java-style [10] @decorator syntax, and this appeared for the first time in 2.4a2. Barry Warsaw named this the 'pie-decorator' syntax, in honor of the Pie-thon Parrot shootout which occurred around the same time as the decorator syntax, and because the @ looks a little like a pie. Guido outlined his case [8] on Python-dev, including this piece [9] on some of the (many) rejected forms.
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.
×