On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2012-06-14, at 12:32 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > 2012/6/14 Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com>: > >> On 2012-06-14, at 11:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Yury Selivanov < > yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> [SNIP] > >>> > >>> Let's consider replacement of 'Parameter.is_*' set of attributes with > >>> a single 'Parameter.kind' attribute, which will have the following > >>> possible values: 'positional', 'vararg', 'keyword-only', 'varkwarg'. > >>> > >>> (I think 'positional' is more intuitive than 'index'?) > >>> > >>> > >>> +1 if this change is made. > >> > >> How about adding 'kind' and keeping 'is_*' attributes, > >> but making them read-only dynamic properties, i.e.: > >> > >> class Parameter: > >> ... > >> > >> @property > >> def is_vararg(self): > >> return self.kind == 'vararg' > >> > >> ... > >> > >> ? > > > > Seems a bit bloatly to me. (One way to do it.) > > Yes, but on the other hand it solves "strings are error prone" > argument, keeps all 'is_*' attributes in sync, and makes them > read-only. > > 'kind' property may do validation on set, to diminish mistakes > probability even further. > I agree with Benjamin, it goes against TOOWTDI without enough of a justification to break the rule. Just make the strings constants on the Parameter class and you solve the lack of enum issue.
_______________________________________________ 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
