(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057409.html,) Nick Coghlan suggested allowing attribute references as binding targets.
> x = property("Property x (must be less than 5)") > def x.get(instance): ... Josiah shivered and said it was hard to tell what was even intended, and (in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057437.html) Nick agreed that it was worse than > x.get = f given: > def f(): ... Could someone explain to me why it is worse? I understand not wanting to modify object x outside of its definition. I understand that there is some trickiness about instancemethods and bound variables. But these objections seem equally strong for both forms, as well as for the current "equivalent" of def f(): ... x.get = f The first form (def x.get) at least avoids repeating (or even creating) the temporary function name. The justification for decorators was to solve this very problem within a module or class. How is this different? Is it just that attributes shouldn't be functions, and this might encourage the practice? -jJ _______________________________________________ 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