Sorry for digging this old topic back. I see that my "'property' does not play well with polymorphic code" comment generated some controversy. So here's something in my defense:
Here's the link to stackoveflow topic I am talking about: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/237432/python-properties-and-inheritance The solution that fits my taste: http://stackoverflow.com/a/14349742 A related blogpost: http://requires-thinking.blogspot.com/2006/03/note-to-self-python-properties-are-non.html Yes, I like decorators and descriptors. I also like the ability to create a "virtual property" in a python class by binding a bunch of methods as setter/getter. But I find the implementation of this "virtual property feature" a bit awkward sometimes - every time I need to override a getter/setter in a child class, I need to decorate them again. Some of you may like this "explicitness", but I don't. To Steven D'Aprano: Seriously, what's all the bashing in your last reply about? You dissected my "thank-you reply" more strictly than the python interpreter checking for syntax errors. Not in a mood for fight, but I find your opinions about "bug finding time", "hacks" and "stackoverflow" quite silly.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
