On 2/13/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > I've tried this out on Brett's urllib & urllib2 examples below. (calling > the new builtin attrview() to emphasise the fact that it retains a > reference to the original instance). I don't consider it any uglier than > the proposed syntax changes, and it provides a few other benefits: > > - the two-argument form is naturally available as the .get() method > on the resulting dict-like object (e.g. "attrview(obj).get(some_attr, > None)") > > - hasattr() is naturally replaced by containment testing (e.g. > "some_attr in attrview(obj)") > > - keywords/builtins are easier to look up in the documentation than > symbolic syntax > > With this approach, performance would be attained by arranging to create > the view objects once, and then performing multiple dynamic attribute > accesses using those view objects.
This changes my vote: +1 on including attrview(), -1 on the syntax proposal. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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
