> Does the code actually work?
Given its reliance on '...' and the fact I'm not great at python and typed it straight into the comment ... no. No it doesn't.
> Wouldn't you need to create a instance within meta_dec and return the result of the __call__ method.
No, like with ES6 parameterised decorators return a function that then gets called with the thing being decorated.
> See at first glance I won't think it would work if I didn't know __call__ is a magic method in python.
(1) my reply was assuming the context of us both having just read the article, which has an example with __call__
(2) as I said in my original comment, you would abstract this away (and document it), I was sketching out an alternative implementation path to allow you to have an object instead of a closure since you didn't seem to be happy with closures, not offering a complete solution
> Mixing classes and FP like that doesn't resonate well with me tbh, but yeah you could do it ... but should you?
(3) if you don't like closures and you don't like objects, I'm not sure what other combined function+data abstraction is available in python that you wouldn't also dislike
(4) I'd probably consider doing it if I had a bunch of similar decorators and found the functional approach was starting to groan at the seams - I use objects for 'parameterised bag of functions, possibly with inheritance' quite a lot for that purpose