On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:13:27 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote: [snip]
> class Test(object): > @autoassign > def __init__(self, _foo, _bar, baz): > print 'baz =', baz [snip] > I think this version, with this name convention, is nice enough to > possibly go in the stdlib if there were an appropriate place for it. > Not sure where though. If there were a classtools module.... -1/2 I don't like the name convention. _name already has a perfectly good convention: it's a private name, don't mess with it. That includes in function/method signatures. With your convention, _foo is public. I suppose you could write __foo for a private name, and ___foo for a *really* private name, relying on the decorator to strip one of the underscores. But counting all those underscores is a PITA, and what happens if you don't actually want that private name set as an instance attribute? As nice as this feature would be, and I vote +2 on the functionality, I wonder whether the amount of line noise in method definitions now will be approaching Perlish levels? We've got default values, type annotations (in Python3), *args and **kwargs, _ private names, and now we want to add auto-assignment. If we do get syntax support, I vote +1 on &foo, +1/2 on @foo, -1 on .foo and -1 on self.foo. (It's explicit, but it's long...). -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
