On 3/21/07, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And yes, properties are actually OK even with 2.2, so there's no
> > reason to avoid them (and they do provide a nicer, claner user API).
> > Decorators are 2.4-only though.
>
> I'm not
On 3/21/07, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And yes, properties are actually OK even with 2.2, so there's no
> reason to avoid them (and they do provide a nicer, claner user API).
> Decorators are 2.4-only though.
I'm not opposed to properties in principle -- I just didn't want to
sta
Fernando Perez wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Properties would be OK for 2.3; I was thinking we might want to use
>> them. When a getter and setter already exist, all it takes is the one
>> extra line of code, plus a suitable (unused) name for the property. I
>>
