John Williams <jrw@pobox.com> wrote in news:3E300A13.6020303@pobox.com:
> Compared to the other proposal going around (which I'll call Guido's,
> since he brought it up), the really big advantage of my proposal is that
> you can use it to do something like adding a property to a class
> implicitly by defining its getter and setter methods:
>
> class A(object):
>
> def get foo(self):
> "Getter for property 'foo'."
> return self.__foo
>
> def set foo(self, foo):
> "Setter for property 'foo'."
> self.__foo = foo
>
<snip>
> At this stage I'd much rather see Guido's proposal implemented, unless
> someone comes up with a truly ingenious way to combine the advantages of
> both.
How about this:
class A(object):
def foo(self, foo) [property.set]:
"Setter for property 'foo'."
self.__foo = foo
def foo(self) [property.get]:
"Getter for property 'foo'."
return self.__foo
Then add static methods to property that look something like this:
def set(fn):
if isinstance(fn, property):
return property(fn.fget, fn, fn.fdel, fn.__doc__)
else:
return property(fset=fn)
def get(fn): ...
def delete(fn): ...
--
Duncan Booth duncan@rcp.co.uk
int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"
"\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4