Me > >> Would we have flatted the area method before properties, through the >> __getattr__ mechanism. Were properties put into the language to make it >> more convenient for us to do this kind of thing - *as a way of >> encouraging this kind of pattern*. I think you - implicated or >> explicitly - think yes. I think I explicitly think no.
John > >I don't understand how you can say "no" to this. Properties exist >precisely to make it simpler to call methods through attribute access >syntax, period. My instinct is that, pre-properties, most programmers >would not have resorted to the __getattr__ magic for these simple cases; >they would just provide a method-call API (as I did for my graphics >library). With properties, I would probably now take the other route. And I don't understand how you can't understand that. Sometimes we just disagree, it seems. The version of Python I run - Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) - discourages me from writing extra code for the purpose of revealing less. It comes with no "properties" exception of which I am aware. I guess we all have our own sense of elegance, and the properties discussion leads me to believe that there is more than one version of Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) floating around. Which is as it should be. And as it should be taught it should be, it seems to me. And don't expect that you disagree with *that*. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
