Index: decorator-3.1.2/documentation.py
===================================================================
--- decorator-3.1.2.orig/documentation.py
+++ decorator-3.1.2/documentation.py
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ keyword arguments:
 
  >>> from inspect import getargspec 
  >>> print getargspec(f1) 
- ([], 'args', 'kw', None)
+ ArgSpec(args=[], varargs='args', keywords='kw', defaults=None)
 
 This means that introspection tools such as pydoc will give
 wrong informations about the signature of ``f1``. This is pretty bad:
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ The signature of ``heavy_computation`` i
 .. code-block:: python
 
  >>> print getargspec(heavy_computation) 
- ([], None, None, None)
+ ArgSpec(args=[], varargs=None, keywords=None, defaults=None)
 
 A ``trace`` decorator
 ------------------------------------------------------
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ and it that it has the correct signature
 .. code-block:: python
 
  >>> print getargspec(f1) 
- (['x'], None, None, None)
+ ArgSpec(args=['x'], varargs=None, keywords=None, defaults=None)
 
 The same decorator works with functions of any signature:
 
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ The same decorator works with functions 
  calling f with args (0, 3, 2), {}
  
  >>> print getargspec(f) 
- (['x', 'y', 'z'], 'args', 'kw', (1, 2))
+ ArgSpec(args=['x', 'y', 'z'], varargs='args', keywords='kw', defaults=(1, 2))
 
 That includes even functions with exotic signatures like the following:
 
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ That includes even functions with exotic
  ... def exotic_signature((x, y)=(1,2)): return x+y
  
  >>> print getargspec(exotic_signature)
- ([['x', 'y']], None, None, ((1, 2),))
+ ArgSpec(args=[['x', 'y']], varargs=None, keywords=None, defaults=((1, 2),))
  >>> exotic_signature() 
  calling exotic_signature with args ((1, 2),), {}
  3