8 ms·

There are examples of decorators having no runtime effects, such as typing.overload. Bit comments are probably more flexible here since it allows arbitrary bloc

There are examples of decorators having no runtime effects, such as typing.overload. Bit comments are probably more flexible here since it allows arbitrary blocks, not just function/class scopes.

orf 3y ago
How would not having the source code be present/pre-generated, and thus needing to generate it at runtime, be an example of a decorator having no runtime effects?
- nkrumm 3y ago
  I had the urge to try this out a while back, here's what I came up with: https://gist.github.com/nkrumm/2b154ea2041511233079222373c83057 https://gist.github.com/nkrumm/2b154ea2041511233079222373c83... The decorator invokes AI completion only the first time the function is run. edit: I lost interest before I was able to get arguments to work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - orf 3y ago
    Yea, that’s cool and very possible, but it’s a runtime effect
- verdverm 3y ago
  OP has to be doing some parsing somewhere, so you just switch to seeking decorators rather than magic comments. It's still before the code reaches the interpreter. The potential issue I see here is that comments are valid anywhere while decorators may not be, but the parser is hopefully resilient to that. You could see a multi-phase LLM that uses the interpreter to ensure the code runs / works as expected
  - orf 3y ago
    It literally just adds the code to the file between the comments. There’s nothing more magic than copy+paste and no runtime component. It’s completely different from a decorator that generates code at runtime? As in, when the code runs?
    - verdverm 3y ago
      which comments should be generated? what if the output has comments? in my question, there is no need for the decorator to be handled at runtime, the tool that does the LLM stuff has to parse the Python code to know what to generate. It can just key off of decorators rather than comments, or at least this is my question & hypothesis.
  - uranusjr 3y ago
    I’m not objecting to what you say. The latter part of my comment is simply considering cases where you only want to replace a part of the function (the author have some examples on the project page), where a decorator wouldn’t be flexible enough to support. Of course you can also argue those can be easily rewritten to be function scoped, but that is a design tradeoff you make that author did not (or didn’t want to).

There are examples of decorators having no runtime effects, such as typing.overload. Bit comments are probably more flexible here since it allows arbitrary blocks, not just function/class scopes.

orf 3y ago

How would not having the source code be present/pre-generated, and thus needing to generate it at runtime, be an example of a decorator having no runtime effects?

nkrumm 3y ago
I had the urge to try this out a while back, here's what I came up with: https://gist.github.com/nkrumm/2b154ea2041511233079222373c83057 https://gist.github.com/nkrumm/2b154ea2041511233079222373c83... The decorator invokes AI completion only the first time the function is run. edit: I lost interest before I was able to get arguments to work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- orf 3y ago
  Yea, that’s cool and very possible, but it’s a runtime effect
verdverm 3y ago
OP has to be doing some parsing somewhere, so you just switch to seeking decorators rather than magic comments. It's still before the code reaches the interpreter. The potential issue I see here is that comments are valid anywhere while decorators may not be, but the parser is hopefully resilient to that. You could see a multi-phase LLM that uses the interpreter to ensure the code runs / works as expected
- orf 3y ago
  It literally just adds the code to the file between the comments. There’s nothing more magic than copy+paste and no runtime component. It’s completely different from a decorator that generates code at runtime? As in, when the code runs?
  - verdverm 3y ago
    which comments should be generated? what if the output has comments? in my question, there is no need for the decorator to be handled at runtime, the tool that does the LLM stuff has to parse the Python code to know what to generate. It can just key off of decorators rather than comments, or at least this is my question & hypothesis.
- uranusjr 3y ago
  I’m not objecting to what you say. The latter part of my comment is simply considering cases where you only want to replace a part of the function (the author have some examples on the project page), where a decorator wouldn’t be flexible enough to support. Of course you can also argue those can be easily rewritten to be function scoped, but that is a design tradeoff you make that author did not (or didn’t want to).