On Jul 6, 12:11 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve-REMOVE- t...@cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:12:47 -0700, kedra marbun wrote: > > On Jul 5, 7:49 am, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >> kedra marbun wrote: > >> > now, i'm asking another favor, what about the 2nd point in my 1st > >> > post? > > >> Your original post has dropped off my newsscope, so you'll have to > >> remind me what the 2nd point was. > > >> -- > >> Greg > > > it's like 'name', it's about info that i think should be passed to > > descriptor's __{get|set|delete}__. i wonder what are the reasons for not > > passing the class on which the descriptor is attached to, what pattern > > is encouraged by this? > > Perhaps I'm missing the context, but since the descriptor is passed the > instance, you can easily get the class with type(self) or self.__class__. > There's no need to pass the class as a separate argument. > > -- > Steven
no, the class that i meant is the one that actually has the descriptor in its __dict__, not instance.__class__ the class obj that you said unecessary-as-arg is what __get__ receives as the 3rd arg class Desc: def __get__(*args): print(args) class a: v0 = Desc() class b(a): pass b().v0 #(desc, b(), b) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list