>>>How would this be interpreted?
>>> x = 42
>>> def x(self) [propget]:
>>> "Doc string for x"
>>> return self.__x
>
>>>That is, there is already an (otherwise invalid) 'x' in the calling scope
>>>when propget() is called. Do the property doodads just need to be
>>>bulletproofed or should an exception be raised?
[GvR said:]
>>It's broken. I expect this to raise an exception at some point.
>>Beyond that, who cares?
[Jim said:]
> If so, then this decorator is a bad idea.
>
> I would expect 42 to be the initial value of the property x.
That doesn't make sense. If you want to set a default value, you'd say:
__x = 42
A property's getter/setter/deleter can perform arbitrary actions, and in
the general case there's no sensible way to define an "initial value"
for a property. E.g., consider:
class A:
def getX(self):
return random.choice(['apple', 'orange', 'grape'])
x = property(getX)
If this still doesn't make sense, go read the docs for properties:
<http://www.python.org/2.2.2/descrintro.html#property>
[Skip said:]
> Then it makes sense to put "x = 42" after the three property definitions
> (before the end of the class definition). Would that work?
No, that would just overwrite x with the value 42 (throwing away the
property object).
-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