Kevin Jacobs <jacobs@penguin.theopalgroup.com> writes:
> 1) Should class instances explicitly/directly know all of their attributes?
Since types are classes, this is the same question as "should type
instances know all their attributes?" I don't think they should, in
general: For example, there is no way to find out whether a string
object has an interned pointer, and I don't think there should be.
The __slots__ aren't really different here. In fact, if you do
class Spam(object):
__slots__ = ('a','b')
s = Spam()
s.a = {}
del Spam.a
you loose access to s.a, even though it is still available (I guess it
is actually a bug that cyclic garbage collection won't find cycles
involving slots).
> 2) Should attribute access follow the same resolution order rules as
> methods?
Yes, I think so.
> 4) Should __slots__ be flat?
Yes. They should also be a property of the type, not a member of the
dict of the type, and they should be a tuple of member object, not a
list of strings. It might be reasonable to call this property
__members__.
> > ('c','d') # current behavior
> or
> > ('a','b','c','d') # alternate behavior
Neither, nor; assuming you meant Bar to inherit from Foo, it should be
(<member 'a' of 'Foo' objects>, <member 'b' of 'Foo' objects>,
<member 'c' of 'Bar' objects>, <member 'd' of 'Bar' objects>)
Regards,
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