Re: [Tutor] classproperty: readonly and inheritance - not more needed
Now the "not read-only" part: Foo.my_prop = "whatever" Foo.my_prop 'whatever' You now have a string attribute, the property is lost. Methods behave the same way and it's generally not a problem, but you should at least be aware of this behaviour. Yes, now I understand you. Thank you Regards, Thomas Güttler -- Thomas Guettler http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] classproperty: readonly and inheritance - not more needed
Thomas Güttler wrote:
>
>
> Am 20.04.2017 um 14:26 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Thomas Güttler wrote:
>>
- its hard to get classproperty to work right.
>>>
>>> What is "righ"?
>>>
>>> In my case a read-only classproperty is enough. Inheritance should be
>>> supported.
>>>
>>> I don't have a usecase for a setter.
>>
>> The standard library is not just for you :-)
>>
>> If Peter's solution is "good enough" for you, then great, go ahead and
>> use it. But beware: of the two implementations I know, you cannot have
>> both:
>>
>> - access from instances;
>> - read-only property;
>>
>> You can have access from instances, but then the classproperty is not
>> read-only. Or you can have read-only access, but only from the class
>> object.
>
> I can't follow what you. What do you mean with "... is not read-only".
>
> This snippet works fine:
>
> {{{
>
> class classproperty(object):
> def __init__(self, f):
> self.f = f
> def __get__(self, obj, owner):
> return self.f(owner)
>
> class Foo(object):
> @classproperty
> def my_prop(cls):
> return 42
>
> print Foo.my_prop
>
> print Foo().my_prop
> }}}
>
> Regards,
>Thomas
>
Python 2.7.6 (default, Oct 26 2016, 20:30:19)
[GCC 4.8.4] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> class classproperty(object):
... def __init__(self, f):
... self.f = f
... def __get__(self, obj, owner):
... return self.f(owner)
...
>>> class Foo(object):
... @classproperty
... def my_prop(cls):
... print "calculating..."
... return 42
...
>>> Foo.my_prop
calculating...
42
Now the "not read-only" part:
>>> Foo.my_prop = "whatever"
>>> Foo.my_prop
'whatever'
You now have a string attribute, the property is lost. Methods behave the
same way and it's generally not a problem, but you should at least be aware
of this behaviour.
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] classproperty: readonly and inheritance - not more needed
Am 20.04.2017 um 14:26 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Thomas Güttler wrote:
- its hard to get classproperty to work right.
What is "righ"?
In my case a read-only classproperty is enough. Inheritance should be
supported.
I don't have a usecase for a setter.
The standard library is not just for you :-)
If Peter's solution is "good enough" for you, then great, go ahead and
use it. But beware: of the two implementations I know, you cannot have
both:
- access from instances;
- read-only property;
You can have access from instances, but then the classproperty is not
read-only. Or you can have read-only access, but only from the class
object.
I can't follow what you. What do you mean with "... is not read-only".
This snippet works fine:
{{{
class classproperty(object):
def __init__(self, f):
self.f = f
def __get__(self, obj, owner):
return self.f(owner)
class Foo(object):
@classproperty
def my_prop(cls):
return 42
print Foo.my_prop
print Foo().my_prop
}}}
Regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Guettler http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] classproperty: readonly and inheritance - not more needed
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Thomas Güttler wrote: > >- its hard to get classproperty to work right. > > What is "righ"? > > In my case a read-only classproperty is enough. Inheritance should be > supported. > > I don't have a usecase for a setter. The standard library is not just for you :-) If Peter's solution is "good enough" for you, then great, go ahead and use it. But beware: of the two implementations I know, you cannot have both: - access from instances; - read-only property; You can have access from instances, but then the classproperty is not read-only. Or you can have read-only access, but only from the class object. Although I haven't studied Eryksun's solution yet, he may have found a work-around. Good luck! -- Steve ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
