> What would this mythical block statement look like that would make
> properties easier to write than the above late-binding or the subclass
> Property recipe?
I suppose something like:
class C(object):
x = prop:
""" Yay for property x! """
def __get__(self):
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 19:17 +0200, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> > What would this mythical block statement look like that would make
> > properties easier to write than the above late-binding or the subclass
> > Property recipe?
>
> I suppose something like:
>
> class C(object):
> x =
Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > What would this mythical block statement look like that would make
> > properties easier to write than the above late-binding or the subclass
> > Property recipe?
>
> I suppose something like:
>
> class C(object):
> x = prop:
>
Le mardi 18 octobre 2005 à 12:56 -0700, Josiah Carlson a écrit :
> You are saving 3 lines over the decorator/function approach [...]
Well, obviously, the point of a block statement or construct is that it
can be applied to many other things than properties. Otherwise it is
overkill as you imply.
on 18.10.2005 19:17 Antoine Pitrou said the following:
>>What would this mythical block statement look like that would make
>>properties easier to write than the above late-binding or the subclass
>>Property recipe?
>
> I suppose something like:
>
> class C(object):
> x = prop:
>
Stefan Rank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I think there is no need for a special @syntax for this to work.
>
> I suppose it would be possible to allow a trailing block after any
> function invocation, with the effect of creating a new namespace that
> gets treated as co
