Skip: >> How would this be interpreted? >> x = 42 >> def x(self) [propget]: >> "Doc string for x" >> return self.__x >> That is, there is already an (otherwise invalid) 'x' in the calling scope >> when propget() is called. Do the property doodads just need to be >> bulletproofed or should an exception be raised? Guido: > It's broken. I expect this to raise an exception at some point. > Beyond that, who cares? If so, then this decorator is a bad idea. I would expect 42 to be the initial value of the property x. I could learn that properties are different, and this won't work, but... this would be a very unexpected result. At the very least, an explicit exception should be raised at definition time. -jJ
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