On 2008-06-03, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 2, 10:14 am, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2008-06-02, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can't you look beyond the specific example? The GetX is just an example. >> Any local function of __init__ has access to hidden and its attributes >> and could manipulate them, even if the class wouldn't define getters >> and setters. > > Ok. You could have made the proof-of-concept-ness of your example > more clear by not, you know, binding those local functions to globally > accessable names, thus thwarting your own concept. > > But still, we all knew functions could do that. Well maybe you all knew that, yet while I read the thread, I saw noone mentioning this possibility to get what the OP seemed to want. I also did't see other posibilities. Your idea as an alternative only came as a reaction to my idea. I know my idea as presented was cumbersome. Maybe it can be worked out more, maybe with the help of decorators to be less cumbersome. I also know it can be circumvented in CPython. Yet I think is was usefull to explore what is already possible in Python instead of just argueing about whether people need it or not I always find it odd when the "you don't need it" argument is used. Of course that is correct, put python has acquired a lot of things that were originnally labeled "you don't need it". So why people still use it against introducing something, is something I don't entirely understand. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
