On 12/4/2013 6:42 PM, Piotr Dobrogost wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 11:11:56 PM UTC+1, Terry Reedy wrote:
The discussion of keystrokes is also a side-track.
To great degree, yes. Having said that I find extra 11 keystrokes
needed to access some attributes to be a freaking big and
unjustifiable number.
Given that there is almost no need to ever use operator chars in
attribute names and given that syntax changes have the major undesirable
consequence of backward incompatibility, I find it to be a small and
inconsequential number.
What you are proposing, I believe, is a new grammatical category:
attribute-name := identifier or string-literal. This would break
the symmetry of the grammatical form identifier '.' identifier and
change it to the asymmetrical identifier '.' attribute-name, and
that is the
Nice description.
To put it another way, how does 'obj' get the non-standard
attribute 'value-1', when obj is a module or class? The workaround
given above for module attributes will not work for classes.
The module workaround, which I find pretty ugly, is this:
>>> len is __builtins__.len
True
>>> __globals__ = __import__(__name__)
>>> a = 1
>>> a is __globals__.a
True
I have not checked that the import trick will work when a module is
imported, but I believe it will.
I'm not sure I see your point. Do you mean that being inside class
declaration there's no name that referrs to the current namespace
(the way __globals__ refer to module's namespace) thus we can't use
proposed syntax to access non-standard attributes from this
namespace?
Right. Class objects are not created until after the class code runs.
Not really. As others have pointed out, getattr is the preferred
way to get the value of an attribute when you have an object with
attributes and a run-time-only reference to the name in a string
variable.
Yes, and I think it's very unfortunate in itself.
Do you prefer obj.__dict__['name'] to getattr(obj, 'name')?
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
