Arthur wrote:
> > My only objection to it being there - in fact - is the lack of consensus as > to the compelling reason it is necessary. There seems to be agreement, in > fact, on only this one aspect of the reason for its presence as a built_in > function. The fact that the reason is compelling. > I thought we already agreed that properties are a _convenience_. We could already do everything that properties give us using __getattr__ and friends. The _convenience_ was added because many people find it useful. You seem to be saying that having multiple good reasons for a feature is an argument against its inclusion! Most of us consider multiple justifications evidence of a compelling feature. To extend the argument in your direction: I _can_ do everything I _need_ to do in C++, Java, or even assembler. I choose to use Python exactly because it makes the things I need to do _more convenient_ to accomplish. Mind you, I have managed quite well in Python without properties. Now that I have them, I will use them. Furthermore, because it allows me to do something I feel is useful in a simpler way, I will probably use them more often than I used __getattr__ magic before. That is, the benefit I derive (attribute access syntax with implementation independence) is now offset by an even smaller overhead cost (code complexity). Plus my code is more transparent, a double win. And it in no way affects how you have to write your code, so that argument that you don't want to do things the "Java way" (or any other way) is a complete strawman. I still have not read an argument that the property feature itself is in _any_ way a bad thing. Only your claim that some people may like them for reasons that differ from Guido's (and even that is open to interpretation--I happen to view Guido's use-case and the implementation-independence use-case as one and the same). Hence I stand by my previous conclusion that properties are an unambiguously Good Thing (tm). > Whatever the hell it is. "It" is convenience. Convenience is the compelling argument. I guess I'll have to accept your offering the we simply disagree here. My only misgiving is that I still don't know exactly what we're disagreeing about. But we've probably already spent more time and effort than this particular disagreement was worth. -- John M. Zelle, Ph.D. Wartburg College Professor of Computer Science Waverly, IA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (319) 352-8360 _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
