On 6/14/2012 1:10 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com <mailto:yselivanov...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2012-06-14, at 12:32 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2012/6/14 Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
My opinion: I don't like the multiple radio-button attributes either. It is one attribute with multiple values. We use constants elsewhere. In the absence of an enum type that maps ints to a string, the constants should be strings for display and printing.
-- Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ 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
