Guido van Rossum wrote: >> 1. It's easier to read. (In my opinion, anyway; what do other >> people think?) > > Only if you're used to the new syntax. Otherwise it could mean a > costly excursion into the docs. > [...] >> - It's one more special case to document/know. > > Right. It feels like a hack. To me it seems like the "obvious" behavior for a string fget/fset/fdel, but if it's not universally obvious than you're proably right that it's a bad idea to add it. > but I've got a suspicion you want to combine some string argument > (most likely for fget) with some function argument. Yes, the idea was that some properties only redirect on read, or only on write; and that the syntax could be made "cleaner" for those cases. > I'm curious about the use case that makes you feel the need for speed. > I would expect most properties not to simply redirect to another > attribute, but to add at least *some* checking or other calculation. The primary motivation was actually to make the code "easier to read"; the speed boost was an added bonus. (Though not a trivial one -- I do have a good number of fairly tight loops that access properties.) The use case that inspired the idea is defining read-only properties for immutable objects. But I guess I would be better off going with wrapper functions that create the read-only properties for me (like <http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/157768>). Thanks for the feedback! -Edward
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