[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:15 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> This brings up another question, what would one use when referencing
> method names inside the class definition?:
>
> class C:
> def self.method(arg):
> self.value = arg
> def self.othermethod(arg):
> self.value = arg
> # do this?
> funcs = (self.method, self.othermethod)
> # or this?
> funcs = (method, othermethod)
>
> On another related note, I would be interested in seeing this syntax
> adopted for a different purpose...
>
> Normally, if I'm defining a nested function that needs to be stored as
> an object attribute, I have to use a dummy name, like the following:
>
> class C:
> def createfunc(self, arg):
> def _dummy(arg):
> return arg + 1
> self.func = _dummy
>
> It would be nice to be able to do the following instead:
>
> class C:
> def createfunc(self):
> def self.func(arg):
> return arg + 1
>
> Or, after the class definition is done, to extend it dynamically:
>
> def C.method(self, arg):
> self.value = arg
>
> ...which would be the equivalent of the following:
>
> def method(self, arg):
> self.value = arg
> C.method = method
>
> Since functions are first-class objects, it seems perfectly reasonable
> to me.
A decorator might be more advisable here.
class C:
def createfunc(self):
@some_decorator_name
def func(arg):
return arg + 1
Altough I'm not a huge fan of decorators, this would be more in line
what Python already can do an would lean on the @staticmethod and
@classmethod decorators.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
