Robert Bradshaw, 03.11.2010 08:25:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> We could distinguish between normal and read-only properties, though, and
>> allow pretty much arbitrary expressions for the latter. Basically like a
>> lambda expression wrapped into a property descriptor.
>
> Yep, that's what I was thinking. Attribute access paths would probably
> be the most common, but no need to restrict ourselves for the getter.
>
>>> On that note, should we
>>> require an explicit self.obj.x, or is self implicit? (The latter makes
>>> it impossible to refer to non-attributes, and is bad according to the
>>> zen of Python...), so I'd lean against this one.
>>
>> That's a very good idea. Makes it more readable and a lot clearer what
>> happens. This also removes the link to C++ as you can access any attribute
>> of the type in one way or another.
>>
>> Would you actually require it to refer to "self", or would you allow
>> arbitrary global names? I wouldn't even mind the latter, although maybe
>> restricted to static cdef declared names (at least of we generate a setter).
>
> Hmm.... I would at least generate a warning if not assigning to a self
> attribute.
Ok, then let's support arbitrary expressions for read-only properties and
self-attribute-only expressions for normal (getter+setter) properties.
Should it be
property x from readonly expr
or
property readonly x from expr
? I lean towards the first, once again due to the simpler grammar.
Then we get
property x from readonly anyexpr
and
property x from self.attribute
(i.e. "from" followed by a dotted name, which may be "readonly", which
would then be followed by an arbitrary expression)
I don't think we need a "public" for the getter+setter case, "property" is
clear enough IMHO.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
