> I cannot override C2._getname instead, because c2.name would print > 'Test2" instead of lala. Clearly, the property stores a reference to the > get and set methods and it is not possible to have it use the new > methods. Creating a new property is the worst - need to duplicate code > and also C3.name is C1.name returns False. :-) It is not a big problem > because I found the solution just I wonder if there is a better way to > "virtualize" property get/set functions.
I'm not aware of possibility that works as you first expected. You yourself explained why. But _maybe_ you can use lambda here - that creates the layer of indirection one needs. foo = property(lambda self: self.get_foo(), lamda self,v: self.set_foo(v)) On second thoughts, a metaclass _might_ help here - but it would be rather elaborate: look in the baseclasses for properties that have getters and setters of the same name as some methods in the current class, and replace them, or create a new property with them (I'm not sure if descriptors allow changing their get/set/del methods). I'm not 100% sure if and how good that works (a quick hack would be easy, but to ship around the cliffs of multiple inheritance requires more careful navigation I fear...) -- Regards, Diez B. Roggisch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
