Steve Holden wrote: > Georg Brandl wrote: >> Nick Maclaren wrote: >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>>"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>|> >>>|> identical? you only applied @property to one of the methods, and then >>>you're >>>|> surprised that only one of the methods were turned into a property? >>> >>>I wasn't expecting EITHER to be turned INTO a property - I was expecting >>>both methods to be the same, but one would have non-default properties >>>attached to it. >> >> >> That's another sign that property isn't intended to be used as a decorator. >> Normally, decorators wrap functions with other functions. property doesn't >> return a function but a descriptor object. >> > OK, I still think the docs need updating, but to explain the above as > the reason *why* property's use as a decorator is not advised. Or is it > stylistically and semantically acceptable in the case of a read-only > property?
I'm not the one to judge over that. > Would it make sense, in the single argument case, to default the doc > value to fget.__doc__ to support that use case, or should we just not > create read-only properties by using property as a decorator? This is actually already the case in 2.5. Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
