On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Tom Morris <tfmor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisa...@openmailbox.org > > wrote: > >> It seems to me that the current trend is to use the same attribute as >> both a getter and a setter, e.g. Page.text. >> Is this true? Should we convert Claim.getTarget() and .setTarget() to >> just "target" (which is already used internally)? >> > > Using simple data attributes until more complexity is needed and then > switching to Python properties is definitely more Pythonic than using > Java-style getters and setters. > > Consistency of style across the entire API will help consumers understand > it more easily. > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> At the end I suggest to work on the standards (page.text instead of >> page.put() ) but keep compat compatibility. i.e. make a function like this >> in Page class: >> def put(*args): >> page.text = args[0] >> page.save(args[1:]) >> > > Unless you want to support this syntax forever, you might want to consider > either separating it into a compatibility layer or at least clearly marking > it in the documentation as something which is deprecated and won't be > supported forever. Otherwise you're permanently incurring the cost of the > increased API surface area. > Of course I'm in favor of writing down this in documentation (or development guideline) and ask people not to use it. > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Pywikipedia-l mailing list > Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l > > -- Amir
_______________________________________________ Pywikipedia-l mailing list Pywikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/pywikipedia-l
