[Guido]
> > I looked at that, and now I believe it's actually *better* to mention
> > the property name twice, at least compared to Tim' s approach.
[Greg Ewing]
> I'm inclined to agree. Passing functions that you're not
> going to use as functions but just use the name of doesn't
> seem right.
>
> And in my version, it's not *really* redundant, since the
> name is only used to derive the names of the accessor methods.
> It doesn't *have* to be the same as the property name, although
> using anything else could justifiably be regarded as insane...
OK, so how's this for a radical proposal.
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?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
