-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dethe Elza
As Guido has said, properties don't do anything that couldn't be done
before with __getattr__ and __setattr__, they just give a cleaner
syntax for it. Since VPython makes extensive use of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:edu-sig-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur
the
whole nine yards and using the further convenience of its decorator form.
Oops. Forgot. Can't use @property for a set. Because of course @property
is itself in some sense an
Arthur wrote:
... But I still don't see the connection to XP programming, API design
Do you truly not understand my position, or merely disagree with it?
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Edu-sig mailing list
Edu-sig@python.org
Thanks John, you set what I meant.
On 14-Sep-05, at 8:21 AM, Arthur wrote:
Oops. Forgot. Can't use @property for a set. Because of course
@property
is itself in some sense an accident of history.
Not so much an accident of history: property was never intended as a
decorator and probably
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dethe Elza
Not every part of the language needs to fit into an introduction.
There are obscure parts of English that not everyone uses day to day,
but that doesn't mean I argue with poets who use
Art:
I would probably myself opt for the convenience of property, maybe going
the whole nine yards and using the further convenience of its decorator
form.
Footnote:
Although I think Scott did an admirable job of showing how the property
function could be served with the new decorator
This started with a Triangle class.
It has 3 sides,
It had 3 sides that I made open to rebinding, such that mytri.a = 6 could be
used to change the shape of the triangle at run time, ergo its area -- which
is why I wanted to see area as both an attribute (makes sense) and a
read-only one at
