Don Beaudry! The master returns to check on the upstarts. Donald Beaudry wrote: > > ... > > One way of doing that, which I feel also makes things a bit more > obvious, is to allow only a single routine per attribute: __attr_XXX__. My first reaction was negative but it does simplify a bunch of stuff. Inheritance is straightforward, calling a base class is straightforward, implementation is simpler. Overall, I like it! > I agree that prohibiting it is the right idea. The question is how. > Permitting only one routine per attribute lets the traditional > attribute lookup rules work and thus prevents head scratching when > trying to find the code that actually maintains an attribute. The > cost is some additional burden on the writer of the __attr_XXX method > (and some magic to distinguish the del case). Don't follow that. Why not just have "get"/"set"/"del" opcodes? -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus "Hardly anything more unwelcome can befall a scientific writer than having the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. I have been placed in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell..." - Frege, Appendix of Basic Laws of Arithmetic (of Russell's Paradox)
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