On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 1:19 PM Mehrzad Saremi
wrote:
> Calvin, even if the language offered truly private members?
>
I'm saying I don't think they're necessary, especially not for the use case
posited here. Private members in other languages are about things internal
to the class of the object
Calvin, even if the language offered truly private members?
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 17:31, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> The right way for those decorators to hold some private information, imho,
> isn't to put anything on the decorated object at all, but to use a weak-ref
> dictionary using the
The right way for those decorators to hold some private information, imho,
isn't to put anything on the decorated object at all, but to use a weak-ref
dictionary using the target object as a key.
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 5:42 PM Mehrzad Saremi
wrote:
> Python currently uses name mangling for
The proposed semantics would be the same as self.__privs__[__class__,
"foo"]; yes I can say the problem is ugliness. The following is an example
where name mangling can be problematic (of course there are workarounds,
yet if double-underscores are meant to represent class-specific members,
the
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:49 AM Mehrzad Saremi wrote:
>
> No, a class ("the class that I'm lexically inside") cannot be accessed from
> outside of the class. This is why I'm planning to offer it as a core
> feature because only the parser would know. There's apparently no elegant
> solution if
No, a class ("the class that I'm lexically inside") cannot be accessed from
outside of the class. This is why I'm planning to offer it as a core
feature because only the parser would know. There's apparently no elegant
solution if you want to implement it yourself. You'll need to write
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 7:40 AM Mehrzad Saremi wrote:
>
> Python currently uses name mangling for double-underscore attributes. Name
> mangling is not an ideal method to avoid name conflicting. There are
> various normal programming patterns that can simply cause name conflicting
> in
Python currently uses name mangling for double-underscore attributes. Name
mangling is not an ideal method to avoid name conflicting. There are
various normal programming patterns that can simply cause name conflicting
in double-underscore members. A typical example is when a class is
re-decorated
