Just initialize everything in the constructor, unless you have *really *good reason not to do that. On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote: > > I need to create a class solely for the purpose of encapsulating > > a large number of disparate data items. At the moment I have no > > plans for any methods for this class other than the bazillion > > accessors required to access these various instance variables. > > (In case it matters, this class is meant to be a private helper > > class internal to a module, and it won't be subclassed.) > > If it's just a completely dumb struct-like class, you might consider > something like: > http://docs.python.org/library/collections.html#collections.namedtuple > > > What is "best practice" for implementing this sort of class > > *succinctly* (i.e. without a lot of repetitive accessor code)? > > Is there any good reason you can't just use straight instance > variables? Python ain't Java; vanilla, boilerplate accessor methods > should almost always be avoided. > > > Also, one more question concerning syntax. Suppose that i represents > > an instance of this class. Is it possible to define the class to > > support this syntax > > > > val = i.field > > i.field += 6 > > > > ...rather than this one > > > > val = i.get_field() > > i.set_field(i.get_field() + 6) > > > > ? > > Yes, using the magic of the property() function: > http://docs.python.org/library/functions.html#property > > Cheers, > Chris > -- > http://blog.rebertia.com > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
