from __future__ import print_function

doc = r"""\
The ``decorator`` module

:Author: Michele Simionato
:E-mail: michele.simionato@gmail.com
:Version: $VERSION ($DATE)
:Supports: Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6
:Download page: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/decorator/$VERSION
:Installation: ``pip install decorator``
:License: BSD license

.. contents::

Introduction
-----------------------------------------

The ``decorator`` module is over ten years old, but still alive and
kicking. It is used by several frameworks (IPython, scipy, authkit,
pylons, pycuda, sugar, ...) and has been stable for a *long*
time. It is your best option if you want to preserve the signature of
decorated functions in a consistent way across Python
releases. Version 4 is fully compatible with the past, except for
one thing: support for Python 2.4 and 2.5 has been dropped. That
decision made it possible to use a single code base both for Python
2.X and Python 3.X. This is a *huge* bonus, since I could remove over
2,000 lines of duplicated documentation/doctests. Having to maintain
separate docs for Python 2 and Python 3 effectively stopped any
development on the module for several years. Moreover, it is now
trivial to distribute the module as an universal wheel_ since 2to3 is no more
required. Since Python 2.5 has been released 9 years ago, I felt that
it was reasonable to drop the support for it. If you need to support
ancient versions of Python, stick with the decorator module version
3.4.2.  The current version supports all Python releases from 2.6 up to 3.6.

.. _wheel: http://pythonwheels.com/

What's New in version 4
-----------------------

- **New documentation**
  There is now a single manual for all Python versions, so I took the
  opportunity to overhaul the documentation. So, even if you are
  a long-time user, you may want to revisit the docs, since several
  examples have been improved.

- **Packaging improvements**
  The code is now also available in wheel format. Integration with
  setuptools has improved and you can run the tests with the command
  ``python setup.py test`` too.

- **Code changes**
  A new utility function ``decorate(func, caller)`` has been added.
  It does the same job that was performed by the older
  ``decorator(caller, func)``. The old functionality is now deprecated
  and no longer documented, but still available for now.

- **Multiple dispatch**
  The decorator module now includes an implementation of generic
  functions (sometimes called "multiple dispatch functions").
  The API is designed to mimic ``functools.singledispatch`` (added
  in Python 3.4), but the implementation is much simpler.
  Moreover, all decorators involved preserve the signature of the
  decorated functions. For now, this exists mostly to demonstrate
  the power of the module. In the future it could be enhanced/optimized;
  however, its API could change. (Such is the fate of
  experimental features!) In any case, it is very short and compact
  (less then 100 lines), so you can extract it for your own use.
  Take it as food for thought.

- **Python 3.5 coroutines**
  From version 4.1 it is possible to decorate coroutines, i.e. functions
  defined with the `async def` syntax, and to maintain the
  `inspect.iscoroutinefunction` check working for the decorated function.

Usefulness of decorators
------------------------------------------------

Python decorators are an interesting example of why syntactic sugar
matters. In principle, their introduction in Python 2.4 changed
nothing, since they did not provide any new functionality which was not
already present in the language. In practice, their introduction has
significantly changed the way we structure our programs in Python. I
believe the change is for the best, and that decorators are a great
idea since:

* decorators help reducing boilerplate code;
* decorators help separation of concerns;
* decorators enhance readability and maintenability;
* decorators are explicit.

Still, as of now, writing custom decorators correctly requires
some experience and it is not as easy as it could be. For instance,
typical implementations of decorators involve nested functions, and
we all know that flat is better than nested.

The aim of the ``decorator`` module it to simplify the usage of
decorators for the average programmer, and to popularize decorators by
showing various non-trivial examples. Of course, as all techniques,
decorators can be abused (I have seen that) and you should not try to
solve every problem with a decorator, just because you can.

You may find the source code for all the examples
discussed here in the ``documentation.py`` file, which contains
the documentation you are reading in the form of doctests.

Definitions
------------------------------------

Technically speaking, any Python object which can be called with one argument
can be used as a decorator. However, this definition is somewhat too large
to be really useful. It is more convenient to split the generic class of
decorators in two subclasses:

*signature-preserving* decorators:
    Callable objects which accept a function as input and return
    a function as output, *with the same signature*.
*signature-changing* decorators:
    Decorators which change the signature of their input function,
    or decorators that return non-callable objects.

**Signature-changing** decorators have their use: for instance, the
builtin classes ``staticmethod`` and ``classmethod`` are in this
group. They take functions and return descriptor objects which
are neither functions, nor callables.

Still, **signature-preserving** decorators are more common, and easier
to reason about. In particular, they can be composed together,
whereas other decorators generally cannot.

Writing signature-preserving decorators from scratch is not that
obvious, especially if one wants to define proper decorators that
can accept functions with any signature. A simple example will clarify
the issue.

Statement of the problem
------------------------------

A very common use case for decorators is the memoization of functions.
A ``memoize`` decorator works by caching
the result of the function call in a dictionary, so that the next time
the function is called with the same input parameters the result is retrieved
from the cache and not recomputed.

There are many implementations of ``memoize`` in
http://www.python.org/moin/PythonDecoratorLibrary,
but they do not preserve the signature. In recent versions of
Python you can find a sophisticated ``lru_cache`` decorator
in the standard library's ``functools``. Here I am just
interested in giving an example.

Consider the following simple implementation (note that it is
generally impossible to *correctly* memoize something
that depends on non-hashable arguments):

$$memoize_uw

Here I used the functools.update_wrapper_ utility, which was added
in Python 2.5 to simplify the writing of decorators.
(Previously, you needed to manually copy the function attributes
``__name__``, ``__doc__``, ``__module__``, and ``__dict__``
to the decorated function by hand).

Here is an example of usage:

$$f1

.. _functools.update_wrapper: https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html#functools.update_wrapper

This works insofar as the decorator accepts functions with generic signatures.
Unfortunately, it is *not* a signature-preserving decorator, since
``memoize_uw`` generally returns a function with a *different signature*
from the original.

Consider for instance the following case:

$$f1

Here, the original function takes a single argument named ``x``,
but the decorated function takes any number of arguments and
keyword arguments:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> from decorator import getargspec  # akin to inspect.getargspec
 >>> print(getargspec(f1))
 ArgSpec(args=[], varargs='args', varkw='kw', defaults=None)

This means that introspection tools (like ``pydoc``) will give false
information about the signature of ``f1`` -- unless you are using
Python 3.5. This is pretty bad: ``pydoc`` will tell you that the
function accepts the generic signature ``*args, **kw``, but
calling the function with more than one argument raises an error:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> f1(0, 1) # doctest: +IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL
 Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
 TypeError: f1() takes exactly 1 positional argument (2 given)

Notice that ``inspect.getargspec`` and ``inspect.getfullargspec``
will give the wrong signature. This even occurs in Python 3.5,
although both functions were deprecated in that release.


The solution
-----------------------------------------

The solution is to provide a generic factory of generators, which
hides the complexity of making signature-preserving decorators
from the application programmer. The ``decorate`` function in
the ``decorator`` module is such a factory:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> from decorator import decorate

``decorate`` takes two arguments:

1. a caller function describing the functionality of the decorator, and

2. a function to be decorated.

The caller function must have signature ``(f, *args, **kw)``, and it
must call the original function ``f`` with arguments ``args`` and ``kw``,
implementing the wanted capability (in this case, memoization):

$$_memoize

Now, you can define your decorator as follows:

$$memoize

The difference from the nested function approach of ``memoize_uw``
is that the decorator module forces you to lift the inner function
to the outer level. Moreover, you are forced to explicitly pass the
function you want to decorate; there are no closures.

Here is a test of usage:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @memoize
 ... def heavy_computation():
 ...     time.sleep(2)
 ...     return "done"

 >>> print(heavy_computation()) # the first time it will take 2 seconds
 done

 >>> print(heavy_computation()) # the second time it will be instantaneous
 done

The signature of ``heavy_computation`` is the one you would expect:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> print(getargspec(heavy_computation))
 ArgSpec(args=[], varargs=None, varkw=None, defaults=None)

A ``trace`` decorator
------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example of how to define a simple ``trace`` decorator,
which prints a message whenever the traced function is called:

$$_trace

$$trace

Here is an example of usage:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def f1(x):
 ...     pass

It is immediate to verify that ``f1`` works...

.. code-block:: python

 >>> f1(0)
 calling f1 with args (0,), {}

...and it that it has the correct signature:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> print(getargspec(f1))
 ArgSpec(args=['x'], varargs=None, varkw=None, defaults=None)

The decorator works with functions of any signature:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def f(x, y=1, z=2, *args, **kw):
 ...     pass

 >>> f(0, 3)
 calling f with args (0, 3, 2), {}

 >>> print(getargspec(f))
 ArgSpec(args=['x', 'y', 'z'], varargs='args', varkw='kw', defaults=(1, 2))

$FUNCTION_ANNOTATIONS

``decorator.decorator``
---------------------------------------------

It can become tedious to write a caller function (like the above
``_trace`` example) and then a trivial wrapper
(``def trace(f): return decorate(f, _trace)``) every time.
Not to worry!  The ``decorator`` module provides an easy shortcut
to convert the caller function into a signature-preserving decorator.

It is the ``decorator`` function:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> from decorator import decorator
 >>> print(decorator.__doc__)
 decorator(caller) converts a caller function into a decorator

The ``decorator`` function can be used as a signature-changing
decorator, just like ``classmethod`` and ``staticmethod``.
But ``classmethod`` and ``staticmethod`` return generic
objects which are not callable. Instead, ``decorator`` returns
signature-preserving decorators (i.e. functions with a single argument).

For instance, you can write:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @decorator
 ... def trace(f, *args, **kw):
 ...     kwstr = ', '.join('%r: %r' % (k, kw[k]) for k in sorted(kw))
 ...     print("calling %s with args %s, {%s}" % (f.__name__, args, kwstr))
 ...     return f(*args, **kw)

And ``trace`` is now a decorator!

.. code-block:: python

 >>> trace # doctest: +ELLIPSIS
 <function trace at 0x...>

Here is an example of usage:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def func(): pass

 >>> func()
 calling func with args (), {}

``blocking``
-------------------------------------------

Sometimes one has to deal with blocking resources, such as ``stdin``.
Sometimes it is better to receive a "busy" message than just blocking
everything.
This can be accomplished with a suitable family of decorators,
where the parameter is the busy message:

$$blocking

Functions decorated with ``blocking`` will return a busy message if
the resource is unavailable, and the intended result if the resource is
available. For instance:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @blocking("Please wait ...")
 ... def read_data():
 ...     time.sleep(3) # simulate a blocking resource
 ...     return "some data"

 >>> print(read_data())  # data is not available yet
 Please wait ...

 >>> time.sleep(1)
 >>> print(read_data())  # data is not available yet
 Please wait ...

 >>> time.sleep(1)
 >>> print(read_data())  # data is not available yet
 Please wait ...

 >>> time.sleep(1.1)  # after 3.1 seconds, data is available
 >>> print(read_data())
 some data

``decorator(cls)``
--------------------------------------------

The ``decorator`` facility can also produce a decorator starting
from a class with the signature of a caller. In such a case the
produced generator is able to convert functions into factories
to create instances of that class.

As an example, here is a decorator which can convert a
blocking function into an asynchronous function. When
the function is called, it is executed in a separate thread.

(This is similar to the approach used in the ``concurrent.futures`` package.
But I don't recommend that you implement futures this way; this is just an
example.)

$$Future

The decorated function returns a ``Future`` object. It has a ``.result()``
method which blocks until the underlying thread finishes and returns
the final result.

Here is the minimalistic usage:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @decorator(Future)
 ... def long_running(x):
 ...     time.sleep(.5)
 ...     return x

 >>> fut1 = long_running(1)
 >>> fut2 = long_running(2)
 >>> fut1.result() + fut2.result()
 3

contextmanager
-------------------------------------

Python's standard library has the ``contextmanager`` decorator,
which converts a generator function into a ``GeneratorContextManager``
factory. For instance, if you write this...

.. code-block:: python

 >>> from contextlib import contextmanager
 >>> @contextmanager
 ... def before_after(before, after):
 ...     print(before)
 ...     yield
 ...     print(after)


...then ``before_after`` is a factory function that returns
``GeneratorContextManager`` objects, which provide the
use of the ``with`` statement:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> with before_after('BEFORE', 'AFTER'):
 ...     print('hello')
 BEFORE
 hello
 AFTER

Basically, it is as if the content of the ``with`` block was executed
in the place of the ``yield`` expression in the generator function.

In Python 3.2, ``GeneratorContextManager`` objects were enhanced with
a ``__call__`` method, so that they can be used as decorators, like so:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @ba # doctest: +SKIP
 ... def hello():
 ...     print('hello')
 ...
 >>> hello() # doctest: +SKIP
 BEFORE
 hello
 AFTER

The ``ba`` decorator basically inserts a ``with ba:`` block
inside the function.

However, there are two issues:

1. ``GeneratorContextManager`` objects are only callable in Python 3.2,
   so the previous example breaks in older versions of Python.
   (You can solve this by installing ``contextlib2``, which backports
   the Python 3 functionality to Python 2.)

2. ``GeneratorContextManager`` objects do not preserve the signature of
   the decorated functions. The decorated ``hello`` function above will
   have the generic signature ``hello(*args, **kwargs)``, but fails if
   called with more than zero arguments.

For these reasons, the `decorator` module, starting from release 3.4, offers a
``decorator.contextmanager`` decorator that solves both problems,
*and* works in all supported Python versions.  Its usage is identical,
and factories decorated with ``decorator.contextmanager`` will return
instances of ``ContextManager``, a subclass of the standard library's
``contextlib.GeneratorContextManager`` class. The subclass includes
an improved ``__call__`` method, which acts as a signature-preserving
decorator.

The ``FunctionMaker`` class
---------------------------------------------------------------

You may wonder how the functionality of the ``decorator`` module
is implemented. The basic building block is
a ``FunctionMaker`` class. It generates on-the-fly functions
with a given name and signature from a function template
passed as a string.

If you're just writing ordinary decorators, then you probably won't
need to use ``FunctionMaker`` directly. But in some circumstances, it
can be handy. You will see an example shortly--in
the implementation of a cool decorator utility (``decorator_apply``).

``FunctionMaker`` provides the ``.create`` classmethod, which
accepts the *name*, *signature*, and *body* of the function
you want to generate, as well as the execution environment
where the function is generated by ``exec``.

Here's an example:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> def f(*args, **kw): # a function with a generic signature
 ...     print(args, kw)

 >>> f1 = FunctionMaker.create('f1(a, b)', 'f(a, b)', dict(f=f))
 >>> f1(1,2)
 (1, 2) {}

It is important to notice that the function body is interpolated
before being executed; **be careful** with the ``%`` sign!

``FunctionMaker.create`` also accepts keyword arguments.
The keyword arguments are attached to the generated function.
This is useful if you want to set some function attributes
(e.g., the docstring ``__doc__``).

For debugging/introspection purposes, it may be useful to see
the source code of the generated function. To do this, just
pass ``addsource=True``, and the generated function will get
a ``__source__`` attribute:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> f1 = FunctionMaker.create(
 ...     'f1(a, b)', 'f(a, b)', dict(f=f), addsource=True)
 >>> print(f1.__source__)
 def f1(a, b):
     f(a, b)
 <BLANKLINE>

The first argument to ``FunctionMaker.create`` can be a string (as above),
or a function. This is the most common usage, since you typically decorate
pre-existing functions.

If you're writing a framework, however, you may want to use
``FunctionMaker.create`` directly, rather than ``decorator``, because it gives
you direct access to the body of the generated function.

For instance, suppose you want to instrument the ``__init__`` methods of a
set of classes, by preserving their signature.
(This use case is not made up. This is done by SQAlchemy, and other frameworks,
too.)
Here is what happens:

- If first argument of ``FunctionMaker.create`` is a function,
  an instance of ``FunctionMaker`` is created with the attributes
  ``args``, ``varargs``, ``keywords``, and ``defaults``.
  (These mirror the return values of the standard library's
  ``inspect.getargspec``.)

- For each item in ``args`` (a list of strings of the names of all required
  arguments), an attribute ``arg0``, ``arg1``, ..., ``argN`` is also generated.

- Finally, there is a ``signature`` attribute, which is a string with the
  signature of the original function.

**NOTE:** You should not pass signature strings with default arguments
(e.g., something like ``'f1(a, b=None)'``). Just pass ``'f1(a, b)'``,
followed by a tuple of defaults:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> f1 = FunctionMaker.create(
 ...     'f1(a, b)', 'f(a, b)', dict(f=f), addsource=True, defaults=(None,))
 >>> print(getargspec(f1))
 ArgSpec(args=['a', 'b'], varargs=None, varkw=None, defaults=(None,))


Getting the source code
---------------------------------------------------

Internally, ``FunctionMaker.create`` uses ``exec`` to generate the
decorated function. Therefore ``inspect.getsource`` will not work for
decorated functions. In IPython, this means that the usual ``??`` trick
will give you the (right on the spot) message ``Dynamically generated
function. No source code available``.

In the past, I considered this acceptable, since ``inspect.getsource``
does not really work with "regular" decorators. In those cases,
``inspect.getsource`` gives you the wrapper source code, which is probably
not what you want:

$$identity_dec
$$example

.. code-block:: python

 >>> import inspect
 >>> print(inspect.getsource(example))
     def wrapper(*args, **kw):
         return func(*args, **kw)
 <BLANKLINE>

(See bug report 1764286_ for an explanation of what is happening).
Unfortunately the bug still exists in all versions of Python < 3.5.

However, there is a workaround. The decorated function has the ``__wrapped__``
attribute, pointing to the original function. The simplest way to get the
source code is to call ``inspect.getsource`` on the undecorated function:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> print(inspect.getsource(factorial.__wrapped__))
 @tail_recursive
 def factorial(n, acc=1):
     "The good old factorial"
     if n == 0:
         return acc
     return factorial(n-1, n*acc)
 <BLANKLINE>

.. _1764286: http://bugs.python.org/issue1764286

Dealing with third-party decorators
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes on the net you find some cool decorator that you would
like to include in your code. However, more often than not, the cool
decorator is not signature-preserving. What you need is an easy way to
upgrade third party decorators to signature-preserving decorators...
*without* having to rewrite them in terms of ``decorator``.

You can use a ``FunctionMaker`` to implement that functionality as follows:

$$decorator_apply

``decorator_apply`` sets the generated function's ``__wrapped__`` attribute
to the original function, so you can get the right source code.
If you are using a Python later than 3.2, you should also set the
``__qualname__`` attribute to preserve the qualified name of the original
function.

Notice that I am not providing this functionality in the ``decorator``
module directly, since I think it is best to rewrite the decorator instead
of adding another level of indirection. However, practicality
beats purity, so you can add ``decorator_apply`` to your toolbox and
use it if you need to.

To give a good example for ``decorator_apply``, I will show a pretty slick
decorator that converts a tail-recursive function into an iterative function.
I have shamelessly stolen the core concept from Kay Schluehr's recipe
in the Python Cookbook,
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/496691.

$$TailRecursive

Here the decorator is implemented as a class returning callable
objects.

$$tail_recursive

Here is how you apply the upgraded decorator to the good old factorial:

$$factorial

.. code-block:: python

 >>> print(factorial(4))
 24

This decorator is pretty impressive, and should give you some food for
thought! ;)

Notice that there is no recursion limit now; you can easily compute
``factorial(1001)`` (or larger) without filling the stack frame.

Notice also that the decorator will *not* work on functions which
are not tail recursive, such as the following:

$$fact

**Reminder:** A function is *tail recursive* if it does either of the
following:

- returns a value without making a recursive call; or,
- returns directly the result of a recursive call.

Python 3.5 coroutines
-----------------------

I am personally not using Python 3.5 coroutines yet, because at work we are
still maintaining compatibility with Python 2.7. However, some users requested
support for coroutines and since version 4.1 the decorator module has it.
You should consider the support experimental and kindly report issues if
you find any.

Here I will give a single example of usage. Suppose you want to log the moment
a coroutine starts and the moment it stops for debugging purposes. You could
write code like the following:

.. code-block:: python

 import time
 import logging
 from asyncio import get_event_loop, sleep, wait
 from decorator import decorator

 @decorator
 async def log_start_stop(coro, *args, **kwargs):
     logging.info('Starting %s%s', coro.__name__, args)
     t0 = time.time()
     await coro(*args, **kwargs)
     dt = time.time() - t0
     logging.info('Ending %s%s after %d seconds', coro.__name__, args, dt)

 @log_start_stop
 async def make_task(n):
     for i in range(n):
         await sleep(1)

 if __name__ == '__main__':
     logging.basicConfig(level=logging.INFO)
     tasks = [make_task(3), make_task(2), make_task(1)]
     get_event_loop().run_until_complete(wait(tasks))

and you will get an output like this::

 INFO:root:Starting make_task(1,)
 INFO:root:Starting make_task(3,)
 INFO:root:Starting make_task(2,)
 INFO:root:Ending make_task(1,) after 1 seconds
 INFO:root:Ending make_task(2,) after 2 seconds
 INFO:root:Ending make_task(3,) after 3 seconds

This may be handy if you have trouble understanding what it going on
with a particularly complex chain of coroutines. With a single line you
can decorate the troubling coroutine function, understand what happens, fix the
issue and then remove the decorator (or keep it if continuous monitoring
of the coroutines makes sense). Notice that
`inspect.iscoroutinefunction(make_task)`
will return then right answer (i.e. `True`).

Multiple dispatch
-------------------------------------------

There has been talk of implementing multiple dispatch functions
(i.e. "generic functions") in Python for over ten years. Last year,
something concrete was done for the first time. As of Python 3.4,
we have the decorator ``functools.singledispatch`` to implement generic
functions!

As its name implies, it is limited to *single dispatch*; in other words,
it is able to dispatch on the first argument of the function only.

The ``decorator`` module provides the decorator factory ``dispatch_on``,
which can be used to implement generic functions dispatching on *any* argument.
Moreover, it can manage dispatching on more than one argument.
(And, of course, it is signature-preserving.)

Here is a concrete example (from a real-life use case) where it is desiderable
to dispatch on the second argument.

Suppose you have an ``XMLWriter`` class, which is instantiated
with some configuration parameters, and has the ``.write`` method which
serializes objects to XML:

$$XMLWriter

Here, you want to dispatch on the *second* argument; the first is already
taken by ``self``. The ``dispatch_on`` decorator factory allows you to specify
the dispatch argument simply by passing its name as a string. (Note
that if you misspell the name you will get an error.)

The decorated function `write` is turned into a generic function (
`write` is a function at the idea it is decorated; it will be turned
into a method later, at class instantiation time),
and it is called if there are no more specialized implementations.

Usually, default functions should raise a ``NotImplementedError``, thus
forcing people to register some implementation.
You can perform the registration with a decorator:

$$writefloat

Now XMLWriter can serialize floats:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> writer = XMLWriter()
 >>> writer.write(2.3)
 '<float>2.3</float>'

I could give a down-to-earth example of situations in which it is desiderable
to dispatch on more than one argument--for instance, I once implemented
a database-access library where the first dispatching argument was the
the database driver, and the second was the database record--but here
I will follow tradition, and show the time-honored Rock-Paper-Scissors example:

$$Rock
$$Paper
$$Scissors

I have added an ordinal to the Rock-Paper-Scissors classes to simplify
the implementation. The idea is to define a generic function (``win(a,
b)``) of two arguments corresponding to the *moves* of the first and
second players. The *moves* are instances of the classes
Rock, Paper, and Scissors.

Paper wins over Rock;
Scissors wins over Paper; and
Rock wins over Scissors.

The function will return +1 for a win, -1 for a loss, and 0 for parity.
There are 9 combinations, but combinations with the same ordinal
(i.e. the same class) return 0. Moreover, by exchanging the order of the
arguments, the sign of the result changes. Therefore, it is sufficient to
directly specify only 3 implementations:

$$win
$$winRockPaper
$$winPaperScissors
$$winRockScissors

Here is the result:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> win(Paper(), Rock())
 1
 >>> win(Scissors(), Paper())
 1
 >>> win(Rock(), Scissors())
 1
 >>> win(Paper(), Paper())
 0
 >>> win(Rock(), Rock())
 0
 >>> win(Scissors(), Scissors())
 0
 >>> win(Rock(), Paper())
 -1
 >>> win(Paper(), Scissors())
 -1
 >>> win(Scissors(), Rock())
 -1

The point of generic functions is that they play well with subclassing.
For instance, suppose we define a ``StrongRock``, which does not lose against
Paper:

$$StrongRock
$$winStrongRockPaper

Then you do not need to define other implementations; they are
inherited from the parent:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> win(StrongRock(), Scissors())
 1

You can introspect the precedence used by the dispath algorithm by
calling ``.dispatch_info(*types)``:

.. code-block:: python

  >>> win.dispatch_info(StrongRock, Scissors)
  [('StrongRock', 'Scissors'), ('Rock', 'Scissors')]

Since there is no direct implementation for (``StrongRock``, ``Scissors``),
the dispatcher will look at the implementation for (``Rock``, ``Scissors``)
which is available. Internally, the algorithm is doing a cross
product of the class precedence lists (or *Method Resolution Orders*,
MRO_ for short) of ``StrongRock`` and ``Scissors``, respectively.

.. _MRO: http://www.python.org/2.3/mro.html

Generic functions and virtual ancestors
-------------------------------------------------

In Python, generic functions are complicated by the existence of
"virtual ancestors": superclasses which are not in the class hierarchy.

Consider this class:

$$WithLength

This class defines a ``__len__`` method, and is therefore
considered to be a subclass of the abstract base class ``collections.Sized``:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> issubclass(WithLength, collections.Sized)
 True

However, ``collections.Sized`` is not in the MRO_ of ``WithLength``; it
is not a true ancestor. Any implementation of generic functions (even
with single dispatch) must go through some contorsion to take into
account the virtual ancestors.

In particular, if we define a generic function...

$$get_length

...implemented on all classes with a length...

$$get_length_sized

...then ``get_length`` must be defined on ``WithLength`` instances...

.. code-block:: python

 >>> get_length(WithLength())
 0

...even if ``collections.Sized`` is not a true ancestor of ``WithLength``.

Of course, this is a contrived example--you could just use the
builtin ``len``--but you should get the idea.

Since in Python it is possible to consider any instance of ``ABCMeta``
as a virtual ancestor of any other class (it is enough to register it
as ``ancestor.register(cls)``), any implementation of generic functions
must be aware of the registration mechanism.

For example, suppose you are using a third-party set-like class, like
the following:

$$SomeSet

Here, the author of ``SomeSet`` made a mistake by inheriting from
``collections.Sized`` (instead of ``collections.Set``).

This is not a problem. You can register *a posteriori*
``collections.Set`` as a virtual ancestor of ``SomeSet``:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> _ = collections.Set.register(SomeSet)
 >>> issubclass(SomeSet, collections.Set)
 True

Now, let's define an implementation of ``get_length`` specific to set:

$$get_length_set

The current implementation (and ``functools.singledispatch`` too)
is able to discern that a ``Set`` is a ``Sized`` object, by looking at
the class registry, so it uses the more specific implementation for ``Set``:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> get_length(SomeSet())  # NB: the implementation for Sized would give 0
 1

Sometimes it is not clear how to dispatch. For instance, consider a
class ``C`` registered both as ``collections.Iterable`` and
``collections.Sized``, and defines a generic function ``g`` with
implementations for both ``collections.Iterable`` *and*
``collections.Sized``:

$$singledispatch_example1

It is impossible to decide which implementation to use, since the ancestors
are independent. The following function will raise a ``RuntimeError``
when called. This is consistent with the "refuse the temptation to guess"
philosophy. ``functools.singledispatch`` would raise a similar error.

It would be easy to rely on the order of registration to decide the
precedence order. This is reasonable, but also fragile:

- if, during some refactoring, you change the registration order by mistake,
  a different implementation could be taken;
- if implementations of the generic functions are distributed across modules,
  and you change the import order, a different implementation could be taken.

So the ``decorator`` module prefers to raise an error in the face of ambiguity.
This is the same approach taken by the standard library.

However, it should be noted that the *dispatch algorithm* used by the decorator
module is different from the one used by the standard library, so in certain
cases you will get different answers. The difference is that
``functools.singledispatch`` tries to insert the virtual ancestors *before* the
base classes, whereas ``decorator.dispatch_on`` tries to insert them *after*
the base classes.

Here's an example that shows the difference:

$$singledispatch_example2

If you play with this example and replace the ``singledispatch`` definition
with ``functools.singledispatch``, the assertion will break: ``g`` will return
``"container"`` instead of ``"s"``, because ``functools.singledispatch``
will insert the ``Container`` class right before ``S``.

Notice that here I am not making any bold claim such as "the standard
library algorithm is wrong and my algorithm is right" or viceversa. It
just point out that there are some subtle differences. The only way to
understand what is really happening here is to scratch your head by
looking at the implementations. I will just notice that
``.dispatch_info`` is quite essential to see the class precedence
list used by algorithm:

.. code-block:: python

  >>> g, V = singledispatch_example2()
  >>> g.dispatch_info(V)
  [('V',), ('Sized',), ('S',), ('Container',)]

The current implementation does not implement any kind of cooperation
between implementations. In other words, nothing is akin either to
call-next-method in Lisp, or to ``super`` in Python.

Finally, let me notice that the decorator module implementation does
not use any cache, whereas the ``singledispatch`` implementation does.

Caveats and limitations
-------------------------------------------

One thing you should be aware of, is the performance penalty of decorators.
The worse case is shown by the following example:

.. code-block:: bash

 $ cat performance.sh
 python3 -m timeit -s "
 from decorator import decorator

 @decorator
 def do_nothing(func, *args, **kw):
     return func(*args, **kw)

 @do_nothing
 def f():
     pass
 " "f()"

 python3 -m timeit -s "
 def f():
     pass
 " "f()"

On my laptop, using the ``do_nothing`` decorator instead of the
plain function is five times slower::

 $ bash performance.sh
 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.39 usec per loop
 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.278 usec per loop

Of course, a real life function probably does something more useful
than the function ``f`` here, so the real life performance penalty
*could* be negligible.  As always, the only way to know if there is a
penalty in your specific use case is to measure it.

More importantly, you should be aware that decorators will make your
tracebacks longer and more difficult to understand.

Consider this example:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def f():
 ...     1/0

Calling ``f()`` gives you a ``ZeroDivisionError``.
But since the function is decorated, the traceback is longer:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> f() # doctest: +ELLIPSIS
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   ...
      File "<string>", line 2, in f
      File "<doctest __main__[22]>", line 4, in trace
        return f(*args, **kw)
      File "<doctest __main__[51]>", line 3, in f
        1/0
 ZeroDivisionError: ...

You see here the inner call to the decorator ``trace``, which calls
``f(*args, **kw)``, and a reference to  ``File "<string>", line 2, in f``.

This latter reference is due to the fact that, internally, the decorator
module uses ``exec`` to generate the decorated function. Notice that
``exec`` is *not* responsible for the performance penalty, since is the
called *only once* (at function decoration time); it is *not* called
each time the decorated function is called.

Presently, there is no clean way to avoid ``exec``. A clean solution
would require changing the CPython implementation, by
adding a hook to functions (to allow changing their signature directly).

Even in Python 3.5, it is impossible to change the
function signature directly. Thus, the ``decorator`` module is
still useful!  As a matter of fact, this is the main reason why I still
maintain the module and release new versions.

It should be noted that in Python 3.5, a *lot* of improvements have
been made: you can decorate a function with
``func_tools.update_wrapper``, and ``pydoc`` will see the correct
signature. Unfortunately, the function will still have an incorrect
signature internally, as you can see by using
``inspect.getfullargspec``; so, all documentation tools using
``inspect.getfullargspec`` - which has been rightly deprecated -
will see the wrong signature.

.. _362: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362

In the present implementation, decorators generated by ``decorator``
can only be used on user-defined Python functions or methods.
They cannot be used on generic callable objects or built-in functions,
due to limitations of the standard library's ``inspect`` module, especially
for Python 2. In Python 3.5, many such limitations have been removed, but
I still think that it is cleaner and safer to decorate only
functions. If you want to decorate things like classmethods/staticmethods
and general callables - which I will never support in the decorator module -
I suggest you to look at the wrapt_ project by Graeme Dumpleton.

.. _wrapt: https://wrapt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

There is a strange quirk when decorating functions with keyword
arguments, if one of the arguments has the same name used in the
caller function for the first argument. The quirk was reported by
David Goldstein.

Here is an example where it is manifest:

.. code-block:: python

   >>> @memoize
   ... def getkeys(**kw):
   ...     return kw.keys()
   >>> getkeys(func='a') # doctest: +ELLIPSIS
   Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
   TypeError: _memoize() got multiple values for ... 'func'

The error message looks really strange... until you realize that
the caller function `_memoize` uses `func` as first argument,
so there is a confusion between the positional argument and the
keywork arguments.

The solution is to change the name of the first argument in `_memoize`,
or to change the implementation like so:

.. code-block:: python

   def _memoize(*all_args, **kw):
       func = all_args[0]
       args = all_args[1:]
       if kw:  # frozenset is used to ensure hashability
           key = args, frozenset(kw.items())
       else:
           key = args
       cache = func.cache  # attribute added by memoize
       if key not in cache:
           cache[key] = func(*args, **kw)
       return cache[key]

This avoids the need to name the first argument, so the problem
simply disappears. This is a technique that you should keep in mind
when writing decorators for functions with keyword arguments. Also,
notice that lately I have come to believe that decorating functions with
keyword arguments is not such a good idea, and you may want not to do
that.

On a similar note, there is a restriction on argument names. For instance,
if you name an argument ``_call_`` or ``_func_``, you will get a ``NameError``:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def f(_func_): print(f)
 ...
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   ...
 NameError: _func_ is overridden in
 def f(_func_):
     return _call_(_func_, _func_)

Finally, the implementation is such that the decorated function makes
a (shallow) copy of the original function dictionary:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> def f(): pass # the original function
 >>> f.attr1 = "something" # setting an attribute
 >>> f.attr2 = "something else" # setting another attribute

 >>> traced_f = trace(f) # the decorated function

 >>> traced_f.attr1
 'something'
 >>> traced_f.attr2 = "something different" # setting attr
 >>> f.attr2 # the original attribute did not change
 'something else'

.. _function annotations: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/
.. _docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
.. _pygments: http://pygments.org/

LICENSE (2-clause BSD)
---------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 2005-2017, Michele Simionato
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

  Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  Redistributions in bytecode form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
  the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
  distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

If you use this software and you are happy with it, consider sending me a
note, just to gratify my ego. On the other hand, if you use this software and
you are unhappy with it, send me a patch!
"""

function_annotations = """Function annotations
---------------------------------------------

Python 3 introduced the concept of `function annotations`_: the ability
to annotate the signature of a function with additional information,
stored in a dictionary named ``__annotations__``. The ``decorator`` module
(starting from release 3.3) will understand and preserve these annotations.

Here is an example:

.. code-block:: python

 >>> @trace
 ... def f(x: 'the first argument', y: 'default argument'=1, z=2,
 ...       *args: 'varargs', **kw: 'kwargs'):
 ...     pass

In order to introspect functions with annotations, one needs the
utility ``inspect.getfullargspec`` (introduced in Python 3, then
deprecated in Python 3.5, in favor of ``inspect.signature``):

.. code-block:: python

 >>> from inspect import getfullargspec
 >>> argspec = getfullargspec(f)
 >>> argspec.args
 ['x', 'y', 'z']
 >>> argspec.varargs
 'args'
 >>> argspec.varkw
 'kw'
 >>> argspec.defaults
 (1, 2)
 >>> argspec.kwonlyargs
 []
 >>> argspec.kwonlydefaults

You can check that the ``__annotations__`` dictionary is preserved:

.. code-block:: python

  >>> f.__annotations__ is f.__wrapped__.__annotations__
  True

Here ``f.__wrapped__`` is the original undecorated function.
This attribute exists for consistency with the behavior of
``functools.update_wrapper``.

Another attribute copied from the original function is ``__qualname__``,
the qualified name. This attribute was introduced in Python 3.3.
"""

import sys
import threading
import time
import functools
import itertools
import collections
import collections as c
from decorator import (decorator, decorate, FunctionMaker, contextmanager,
                       dispatch_on, __version__)

if sys.version < '3':
    function_annotations = ''

today = time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d')

__doc__ = (doc.replace('$VERSION', __version__).replace('$DATE', today)
           .replace('$FUNCTION_ANNOTATIONS', function_annotations))


def decorator_apply(dec, func):
    """
    Decorate a function by preserving the signature even if dec
    is not a signature-preserving decorator.
    """
    return FunctionMaker.create(
        func, 'return decfunc(%(signature)s)',
        dict(decfunc=dec(func)), __wrapped__=func)


def _trace(f, *args, **kw):
    kwstr = ', '.join('%r: %r' % (k, kw[k]) for k in sorted(kw))
    print("calling %s with args %s, {%s}" % (f.__name__, args, kwstr))
    return f(*args, **kw)


def trace(f):
    return decorate(f, _trace)


class Future(threading.Thread):
    """
    A class converting blocking functions into asynchronous
    functions by using threads.
    """
    def __init__(self, func, *args, **kw):
        try:
            counter = func.counter
        except AttributeError:  # instantiate the counter at the first call
            counter = func.counter = itertools.count(1)
        name = '%s-%s' % (func.__name__, next(counter))

        def func_wrapper():
            self._result = func(*args, **kw)
        super(Future, self).__init__(target=func_wrapper, name=name)
        self.start()

    def result(self):
        self.join()
        return self._result


def identity_dec(func):
    def wrapper(*args, **kw):
        return func(*args, **kw)
    return wrapper


@identity_dec
def example():
    pass


def memoize_uw(func):
    func.cache = {}

    def memoize(*args, **kw):
        if kw:  # frozenset is used to ensure hashability
            key = args, frozenset(kw.items())
        else:
            key = args
        if key not in func.cache:
            func.cache[key] = func(*args, **kw)
        return func.cache[key]
    return functools.update_wrapper(memoize, func)


@memoize_uw
def f1(x):
    "Simulate some long computation"
    time.sleep(1)
    return x


def _memoize(func, *args, **kw):
    if kw:  # frozenset is used to ensure hashability
        key = args, frozenset(kw.items())
    else:
        key = args
    cache = func.cache  # attribute added by memoize
    if key not in cache:
        cache[key] = func(*args, **kw)
    return cache[key]


def memoize(f):
    """
    A simple memoize implementation. It works by adding a .cache dictionary
    to the decorated function. The cache will grow indefinitely, so it is
    your responsibility to clear it, if needed.
    """
    f.cache = {}
    return decorate(f, _memoize)


def blocking(not_avail):
    def _blocking(f, *args, **kw):
        if not hasattr(f, "thread"):  # no thread running
            def set_result():
                f.result = f(*args, **kw)
            f.thread = threading.Thread(None, set_result)
            f.thread.start()
            return not_avail
        elif f.thread.isAlive():
            return not_avail
        else:  # the thread is ended, return the stored result
            del f.thread
            return f.result
    return decorator(_blocking)


class User(object):
    "Will just be able to see a page"


class PowerUser(User):
    "Will be able to add new pages too"


class Admin(PowerUser):
    "Will be able to delete pages too"


def get_userclass():
    return User


class PermissionError(Exception):
    pass


def restricted(user_class):
    def restricted(func, *args, **kw):
        "Restrict access to a given class of users"
        userclass = get_userclass()
        if issubclass(userclass, user_class):
            return func(*args, **kw)
        else:
            raise PermissionError(
                '%s does not have the permission to run %s!'
                % (userclass.__name__, func.__name__))
    return decorator(restricted)


class Action(object):
    """
    >>> a = Action()
    >>> a.view() # ok
    >>> a.insert() # doctest: +IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL
    Traceback (most recent call last):
       ...
    PermissionError: User does not have the permission to run insert!
    """
    @restricted(User)
    def view(self):
        pass

    @restricted(PowerUser)
    def insert(self):
        pass

    @restricted(Admin)
    def delete(self):
        pass


class TailRecursive(object):
    """
    tail_recursive decorator based on Kay Schluehr's recipe
    http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/496691
    with improvements by me and George Sakkis.
    """

    def __init__(self, func):
        self.func = func
        self.firstcall = True
        self.CONTINUE = object()  # sentinel

    def __call__(self, *args, **kwd):
        CONTINUE = self.CONTINUE
        if self.firstcall:
            func = self.func
            self.firstcall = False
            try:
                while True:
                    result = func(*args, **kwd)
                    if result is CONTINUE:  # update arguments
                        args, kwd = self.argskwd
                    else:  # last call
                        return result
            finally:
                self.firstcall = True
        else:  # return the arguments of the tail call
            self.argskwd = args, kwd
            return CONTINUE


def tail_recursive(func):
    return decorator_apply(TailRecursive, func)


@tail_recursive
def factorial(n, acc=1):
    "The good old factorial"
    if n == 0:
        return acc
    return factorial(n-1, n*acc)


def fact(n):  # this is not tail-recursive
    if n == 0:
        return 1
    return n * fact(n-1)


def a_test_for_pylons():
    """
    In version 3.1.0 decorator(caller) returned a nameless partial
    object, thus breaking Pylons. That must not happen again.

    >>> decorator(_memoize).__name__
    '_memoize'

    Here is another bug of version 3.1.1 missing the docstring:

    >>> factorial.__doc__
    'The good old factorial'
    """


if sys.version >= '3':  # tests for signatures specific to Python 3

    def test_kwonlydefaults():
        """
        >>> @trace
        ... def f(arg, defarg=1, *args, kwonly=2): pass
        ...
        >>> f.__kwdefaults__
        {'kwonly': 2}
        """

    def test_kwonlyargs():
        """
        >>> @trace
        ... def func(a, b, *args, y=2, z=3, **kwargs):
        ...     return y, z
        ...
        >>> func('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', y='y', z='z', cat='dog')
        calling func with args ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'), {'cat': 'dog', 'y': 'y', 'z': 'z'}
        ('y', 'z')
        """

    def test_kwonly_no_args():
        """# this was broken with decorator 3.3.3
        >>> @trace
        ... def f(**kw): pass
        ...
        >>> f()
        calling f with args (), {}
        """

    def test_kwonly_star_notation():
        """
        >>> @trace
        ... def f(*, a=1, **kw): pass
        ...
        >>> import inspect
        >>> inspect.getfullargspec(f)
        FullArgSpec(args=[], varargs=None, varkw='kw', defaults=None, kwonlyargs=['a'], kwonlydefaults={'a': 1}, annotations={})
        """


@contextmanager
def before_after(before, after):
    print(before)
    yield
    print(after)


ba = before_after('BEFORE', 'AFTER')  # ContextManager instance


@ba
def hello(user):
    """
    >>> ba.__class__.__name__
    'ContextManager'
    >>> hello('michele')
    BEFORE
    hello michele
    AFTER
    """
    print('hello %s' % user)


# #######################  multiple dispatch ############################ #


class XMLWriter(object):
    def __init__(self, **config):
        self.cfg = config

    @dispatch_on('obj')
    def write(self, obj):
        raise NotImplementedError(type(obj))


@XMLWriter.write.register(float)
def writefloat(self, obj):
    return '<float>%s</float>' % obj


class Rock(object):
    ordinal = 0


class Paper(object):
    ordinal = 1


class Scissors(object):
    ordinal = 2


class StrongRock(Rock):
    pass


@dispatch_on('a', 'b')
def win(a, b):
    if a.ordinal == b.ordinal:
        return 0
    elif a.ordinal > b.ordinal:
        return -win(b, a)
    raise NotImplementedError((type(a), type(b)))


@win.register(Rock, Paper)
def winRockPaper(a, b):
    return -1


@win.register(Rock, Scissors)
def winRockScissors(a, b):
    return 1


@win.register(Paper, Scissors)
def winPaperScissors(a, b):
    return -1


@win.register(StrongRock, Paper)
def winStrongRockPaper(a, b):
    return 0


class WithLength(object):
    def __len__(self):
        return 0


class SomeSet(collections.Sized):
    # methods that make SomeSet set-like
    # not shown ...
    def __len__(self):
        return 0


@dispatch_on('obj')
def get_length(obj):
    raise NotImplementedError(type(obj))


@get_length.register(collections.Sized)
def get_length_sized(obj):
    return len(obj)


@get_length.register(collections.Set)
def get_length_set(obj):
    return 1


class C(object):
    "Registered as Sized and Iterable"


collections.Sized.register(C)
collections.Iterable.register(C)


def singledispatch_example1():
    singledispatch = dispatch_on('obj')

    @singledispatch
    def g(obj):
        raise NotImplementedError(type(g))

    @g.register(collections.Sized)
    def g_sized(object):
        return "sized"

    @g.register(collections.Iterable)
    def g_iterable(object):
        return "iterable"

    g(C())  # RuntimeError: Ambiguous dispatch: Iterable or Sized?


def singledispatch_example2():
    # adapted from functools.singledispatch test case
    singledispatch = dispatch_on('arg')

    class S(object):
        pass

    class V(c.Sized, S):
        def __len__(self):
            return 0

    @singledispatch
    def g(arg):
        return "base"

    @g.register(S)
    def g_s(arg):
        return "s"

    @g.register(c.Container)
    def g_container(arg):
        return "container"

    v = V()
    assert g(v) == "s"
    c.Container.register(V)  # add c.Container to the virtual mro of V
    assert g(v) == "s"  # since the virtual mro is V, Sized, S, Container
    return g, V


if __name__ == '__main__':
    import doctest
    doctest.testmod()