Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Ron Adam schrieb:
>> Would it be possible for attrview to be a property?
>
> Sure. It might conflict with a proper name of an attribute, of course.
>
>> Something like... (Probably needs more than this to handle all cases.)
>>
>> class obj(object):
>> def _attrview(self):
>> return self.__dict__
>> attr = property(_attrview)
>
> That wouldn't work: you really need to invoke the entire attribute
> lookup machinery (e.g. to find methods, invoke properties, and so
> on). Also, for 2.6, it wouldn't support old-style classes.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
Yes, I thought that might be a problem.
So I guess I'm for the shortened version which wouldn't conflict with a
property
and could be made to work in more cases.
+1 obj.[foo]
I don't care for the longer attrview() as it adds another level of
indirectness.
I feel that is a counter solution to the point of the suggested syntax.
Ron
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
