Duncan Booth wrote:
> 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
This is beautiful, but it does not work: when defining the getter, you
need both the old property, and the new function object. Looking at your
code
def set(fn):
if isinstance(fn, property):
return property(fn.fget, fn, fn.fdel, fn.__doc__)
you first assume fn is the property object, and then assume it is the
setter function.
Of course, there is no reason why the namespace-under-construction
couldn't be passed to the annotation, but that would be an extension to
the protocol.
Martin
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