Kirby Urner wrote:
>>So I find that rejecting it as naïve is fundamentally unresponsive.
>>Art
>
> However in this case I don't think your views were rejected as naïve. On
> the contrary, your views permeated a sophisticated discussion of use cases,
> and design patterns more generally (s'been a rich thread) plus Scott sort of
> liked your using () to connote dynamism (I didn't).
This is close to what I meant. I dislike properties that don't behave
as if they were attributes. That is, I'd like two accesses to the same
property of a particular object to return the same value until the
object has been "changed," and I don't like read access to a property
to be a "real" change. There are three exceptions I allow in my
personal aesthetic:
* debugging code: All's fair for this case. Properties are
_golden_ for allowing tracking things into a
lot of code without changing that code.
* instrumentation: Measurements can be accumulated about behavior,
but shouldn't interact with normal operation.
* performance: Achieving the same results with different
performance is often the whole point of systems
programming style programming.
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Edu-sig mailing list
Edu-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
