On 3/07/20 6:33 pm, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
it is possible to implement pickling support for property
objects which will fail with your example (and I think third-party
libraries do it). The difference is that full qualified names of getter
and setter differ from the full qualified name of the
On 3/07/20 5:42 am, Matthew Einhorn wrote:
Similarly, if you wanted to overwrite a property by using this
property approach in the sub-class, but also call super for the
parent's class property getter from within the get/set this wouldn't
work!?
Realised after sending that you were talking
On 3/07/20 5:42 am, Matthew Einhorn wrote:
I think what he may have meant is that if you tried accessing a
double-underscore property of the outer class from the get/set methods,
it won't properly de-mangle.
Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think that's a fatal problem;
double-underscore
02.07.20 13:26, Greg Ewing пише:
On 2/07/20 8:04 pm, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
It has a problem with pickling (it is solvable).
Can you elaborate? The end result is a property object just the
same as you would get from using @property or calling property
directly. I don't see how it can have
My personal feeling: I would love this idea (DRY gets me almost every time)
if it weren't for that awful, terrible `class` keyword hanging out there.
I wouldn't call using class this way "abuse", exactly, but it could be a
potential use for an old idea raised more than once in the past: some kind
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 6:30 AM Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 2/07/20 8:04 pm, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > It has a problem with pickling (it is solvable).
>
> Can you elaborate? The end result is a property object just the
> same as you would get from using @property or calling property
> directly. I
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:38 PM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 2/07/20 9:45 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:41 PM Alex Hall wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:33 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's the idea being discussed? AIUI there's no need or request to
>
Haha, I had no idea! That's great.
fyi, judicious use of cython allowed our python team to build python
components that far outperformed their java counterparts in some real-time
middle-office financial processing jobs for a really large client. So thank
you.
I can see why using the standard
On 2/07/20 10:49 pm, Stestagg wrote:
Coincidentally, cython has a custom, deprecated syntax for properties
that is actually pretty similar
Not entirely a coincidence -- I invented that syntax for Pyrex,
and Cython inherited it.
I'm a little disappointed to hear it's been deprecated. :-(
--
Coincidentally, cython has a custom, deprecated syntax for properties that
is actually pretty similar, and nice:
cdef class Spam:
property cheese:
"A doc string can go here."
def __get__(self):
# This is called when the property is read.
...
On 2/07/20 9:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Perhaps Greg meant to say *up to* rather than "no less".
What I said is true for sufficiently small values of 5. :-)
You're right that it depends on how many operations you
want. For reading and writing it's 3; if you want deleting
as well it's 5.
On 2/07/20 9:45 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:41 PM Alex Hall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:33 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
What's the idea being discussed? AIUI there's no need or request to
change the language/stdlib, but maybe I'm misreading.
Ah, now I understand.
On 2/07/20 8:04 pm, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
It has a problem with pickling (it is solvable).
Can you elaborate? The end result is a property object just the
same as you would get from using @property or calling property
directly. I don't see how it can have any pickling problems
beyond what
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:33 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:06 PM Alex Hall wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:34 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>
> >> (Not sure why this is on python-ideas - wouldn't python-list be more
> >> appropriate? Keeping it where it is for now
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:41 PM Alex Hall wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:33 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> What's the idea being discussed? AIUI there's no need or request to
>> change the language/stdlib, but maybe I'm misreading.
>
> Ah, now I understand. I did automatically assume that
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:06 PM Alex Hall wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:34 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> (Not sure why this is on python-ideas - wouldn't python-list be more
>> appropriate? Keeping it where it is for now though.)
>
>
> As someone not familiar with the other lists...why?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:04 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> That makes five by my count, however I hardly ever write a deleter so
> three is more common, and only occassionally a setter so one is most
> common :-)
>
Well, if you only want a getter, the most common way is fine. But if
you then go to
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:34 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> (Not sure why this is on python-ideas - wouldn't python-list be more
> appropriate? Keeping it where it is for now though.)
>
As someone not familiar with the other lists...why? It's a proposal of an
idea that could use some debate. Isn't
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:04:40AM +0300, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 02.07.20 10:12, Greg Ewing пише:
> >The @property.getter and @property.setter decorators are
> >clever, but they have the disadvantage that you end up
> >writing the name of the property no less than 5 times,
> >all of which have
02.07.20 10:12, Greg Ewing пише:
The @property.getter and @property.setter decorators are
clever, but they have the disadvantage that you end up
writing the name of the property no less than 5 times,
all of which have to match.
5 times? How is it?
Thinking there must be a better way, I came
(Not sure why this is on python-ideas - wouldn't python-list be more
appropriate? Keeping it where it is for now though.)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:14 PM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> The @property.getter and @property.setter decorators are
> clever, but they have the disadvantage that you end up
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
