> > But the problem is that it makes proprty a keyword, which is a Big > > Change. > > The more kludgy workarounds I see proposed here for *not* having a new > keyword, the more I feel that it would be worth whatever pain it takes > to add one, to get a decent, clean, magic-free syntax for properties. Agreed. It will take longer, but it's The Right Thing. Which is why I'm shooting down all ugly half-solutions. > It's a bit unfortunate that you've already decided to use "property" > as a type name. Is that meant to be official, or is it still > considered an experimental detail? Does that matter at this point? It's been in Python 2.2 for over a year, and we'll can't break that in 2.3. > If you don't want to change it, maybe the keyword could be something > else, like defproperty or __property__. Both are ugly. (See above. :-) > Hmmm, lets try that: > > class Foo(object): > > __property__ myprop: > > def __get__(self): > ... > > def __set__(self, x): > ... > > Doesn't look too bad, once you get used to the idea that an > __xxx___ name can be a keyword... __xxx__ as a keyword is ugly. (See above. :-) I'd like the new keyword to be more generally useful than just for defining property. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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