RetroSearch Browse

Tue Oct 18 04:08:48 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057396.html

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 21:55, Guido van Rossum wrote:

> Let's change the property built-in so that its arguments can be either
> functions or strings (or None). If they are functions or None, it
> behaves exactly like it always has.
> 
> If an argument is a string, it should be a method name, and the method
> is looked up by that name each time the property is used. Because this
> is late binding, it can be put before the method definitions, and a
> subclass can override the methods. Example:
> 
> class C:
> 
>     foo = property('getFoo', 'setFoo', None, 'the foo property')
> 
>     def getFoo(self):
>         return self._foo
> 
>     def setFoo(self, foo):
>         self._foo = foo
> 
> What do you think?

Ick, for all the reasons that strings are less appealing than names. 
IMO, there's not enough advantage in having the property() call before
the functions than after.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20051017/a14d6183/attachment-0001.pgp

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057396.html below:

[Python-Dev] Definining properties - a use case for class decorators?