On Friday 15 February 2002 02:35 pm, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > Michael McLay writes: > > While my approach was patterened after the property() builtin, the > > Python Labs crowd didn't like the notation and rejected the > > I'll note as well that at least some of us, if not all, don't like the > property() syntax as well. My current favorite was one of Guido's > proposals at Python 10: I agree with you on this being a better notation. It unclutters the class definition. Had Guido suggested the alternative slot syntaxes back at the start of November I would have used one of the alternative syntaxes instead of creating a new builtin function. BTW, adding a builtin function is a pain. The trick of counting the number of parameters to determine behavior caused strange things to happen during the testing of the addmember function. > class Foo(object): > property myprop: > """A computed property on Foo objects.""" > > def __get__(self): > return ... > def __set__(self): > ... > def __delete__(self): Is someone working on an implementation of this?
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