Are there any AOP project in python community?

[steve]

I mean Aspect-Oriented Programming.
If any please give me some of links.
Thanks a lot.

 

[hiaips]

I mean Aspect-Oriented Programming.
If any please give me some of links.
Thanks a lot.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming.
There is a list of AOP implementations for a number of languages
(including Python) near the bottom of the page.

--hiaips

 

[Kay Schluehr]

I mean Aspect-Oriented Programming.
If any please give me some of links.
Thanks a lot.

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=python+++AOP&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

 

[Alexandre Fayolle]

I mean Aspect-Oriented Programming.
If any please give me some of links.
Thanks a lot.

You may want to look at http://www.logilab.org/projects/aspects

 

[Cameron Laird]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming.
There is a list of AOP implementations for a number of languages
(including Python) near the bottom of the page.

--hiaips

Several follow-ups have provided useful references to AOP
with Python. I'd emphasize that Python *needs* AOP less
than do Java and C++.

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

with Python. I'd emphasize that Python *needs* AOP less
than do Java and C++.

I've been asked in private e-mail if I "mean that Python is
aspect-oriented from its beginning."

Yes.

Well, yes and no. And also, I'm not sure. My personal sum-
mary is that aspect orientation is largely a palliative to
correct misfeatures in such object-oriented languages as Java.
Python supports object orientation but doesn't require it, and
practices "duck typing", so the benefits of aspect orientation
are doubly marginal for Python. It's not difficult for a Python
function to, say, sort a variety of different things, while
Java must contrive weird containers and casts to get the right
results. Java needs aspects, and Python doesn't.

On the other hand, Jim Hugunin says <URL:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/dem.../Jim Hugunin (The Next Steps For Aspect-).doc >
AOP is a good and even powerful thing, and I know that Jim's
right about many subjects where I'm in error, so maybe I've got
this one wrong, too.