Tim Peters wrote:
> [Tim, gripes about ...]
>>>> Author: walter.doerwald
>>>> Date: Sat Apr 1 22:40:23 2006
>>>> New Revision: 43545
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> python/trunk/Doc/lib/libcalendar.tex
>>>> python/trunk/Lib/calendar.py
>>>> Log:
>>>> Make firstweekday a simple attribute instead
>>>> of hiding it behind a setter and a getter.
>
> [Walter][
>> This is because in 2.4 there where no Calendar objects and firstweekday was
>> only setable and getable via module level functions.
>
> I didn't realize that, of course <blush>. Skipping the rest ;-),
> then, it would be best to make firstweekday a property on the new base
> class.
>
>> ...
>> The only thing lost is the range check in the setter.
>
> Which isn't a good thing to lose. It's not good that the current
> Calendar constructor skips that sanity check either ("errors should
> never pass silently").
I've changed calendar so that firstweekday is only used modulo 7
everywhere (There was only one spot missing, all other cases used
firstweekday modulo 7 anyway.
>> ...
>> Simple attribute access looks much more Pythonic to me than setters and
>> gettes
>> (especially as the attributes of subclasses are simple attributes).
>> Or are you talking about the Calendar class itself?
>
> Yes, it would be best if Calendar had a property, so that sanity
> checks were performed when setting `firstweekday`, and also if the
> Calendar constructor performed that sanity check (which could happen
> "by magic" if `firstweekday` were a property).
Range checks should no longer be neccessary, as any value works now.
Bye,
Walter Dörwald
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
