Decorator interface for registering processing funcs?

[goodboy]

What's your opinion on a using decorators to register processing functions?

It would eliminate the whole needing to have the -f fixer:add_header explicit syntax. Instead you just point to a module and the decorated funcs are auto loaded.

Also the requirement that the module is on the python path could be avoided by a simple import of the file directly

Whatcha think?

[elmotec]

I agree, the -f fixer:add_header is a little cryptic, one needs to remember the syntax and I seem to forget every time.

So if I understand correctly, you propose to pass just a python file like -f path/to/fixer.py that would get loaded (wherever it is) and then use some magic decorator like say @massedit to let the script know about the program.

I'd like to keep the backward compatibility with -f fixer at least (provided fixer is in $PYTHONPATH, but yeah, sounds like a good idea.

[goodboy]

Yes exactly. Personally I'd go with a api something like,

@massedit.processor
def my_processing_func(lines, path):
    for line in lines:
        ...

This lets you then do verification at import time with inspect:

• verify the function signature args
• verify that the processor is a generator

I can offer up a PR if you'd like.

[elmotec]

Yeah, that sounds good. I was hoping you'd offer :-)

[elmotec]

So I took a different approach and created an option --generate to generate a template fixer.py file.

I found that most of the time the issue was not so much what function I should tell massedit.py to call (I had just created it) but what the callback should look like in the first place.

565bbd3 should fix that problem and allow the user to quickly see how to use massedit.