Dan Stromberg schrieb:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:42:16 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
The baggage of possibly fixing (AKA generalizing) how your attributes
are accessed is something you lug around while your deadline looms.
Sorry I don't get it. If I want to customize the access to a
Stargaming a écrit :
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:58:44 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
[snip]
Your implementation seems particularly broken. You do not return anything
from `name()`,
Oops, my bad ! Indeed, I forgot the 'return property(**locals())' at the
end. And a couple other things too:
Dan Stromberg a écrit :
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:42:28 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
So what? Otherwise you carry *always* the baggage of a public
property and a private attribute whether you need this or not. At
least for me it would be unnecessary in most cases.
That baggage of
Dan Stromberg a écrit :
(snip)
My implementation may or may not be lacking (feel free to improve it - in
fact, please do!),
Since you ask for it:
def makeprop(name):
_name = '_' + name
def fget(self):
return getattr(self, _name, None)
def fset(self, val):
George Sakkis wrote:
By now you must have been convinced that default getters/setters is
not a very useful idea in Python but this does not mean you can't do
it;
It's a perfect summary of my thoughts after reading this thread. I
will use public attributes (with access customizable with
Dan Stromberg a écrit :
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:46:12 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:04:53 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
Artur Siekielski a écrit :
George Sakkis wrote:
By now you must have been convinced that default getters/setters is
not a very useful idea in Python but this does not mean you can't do
it;
It's a perfect summary of my thoughts after reading this thread. I
will use public attributes (with
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:58:44 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
[snip]
Your implementation seems particularly broken. You do not return anything
from `name()`, hereby removing name as an attribute (or: replacing it
with its return value -- None). You should return ``property(**locals())
`` (or
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:42:28 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
So what? Otherwise you carry *always* the baggage of a public
property and a private attribute whether you need this or not. At
least for me it would be unnecessary in most cases.
That baggage of carrying around unneeded
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:42:16 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
The baggage of possibly fixing (AKA generalizing) how your attributes
are accessed is something you lug around while your deadline looms.
Sorry I don't get it. If I want to customize the access to a normal
attribute I
On Oct 12, 2:55 pm, Dan Stromberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a program that needs to perform well, you're much better off
coding your classes the best way you know how from a Software Engineering
perspective, and using pysco or shedskin or pypy or similar to
improve performance.
On 10/12/07, Dan Stromberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:42:28 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
So what? Otherwise you carry *always* the baggage of a public
property and a private attribute whether you need this or not. At
least for me it would be unnecessary in most
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:48:18 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
class Person(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self._name = name
def _get_name(self):
return self._name
def _set_name(self, new_name):
self._name = new_name
name = property(_get_name, _set_name)
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
something other than the default you need to write it anyway more
explicitly.
I see some problems with your approach:
1. If I use instance field 'name'
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:04:53 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
something other than the default you need to write it anyway more
explicitly.
I see some
Artur Siekielski wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
something other than the default you need to write it anyway more
explicitly.
I see some problems with your approach:
1. If
On Oct 11, 4:21 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, it turns out to be a lot less work to deal with that
occasionally than to always deal with lugging around internal
attributes and external properties when they're really not needed. By
writing everything as properties
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:39:29 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:21 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Properties define (a part of) public interface of a class. When
using fields for public access, you must tell this explicitly in
documentation, or use name
Artur Siekielski a écrit :
Hi.
I would like to have declarative properties in Python, ie. something
like slots definitions in defclass in Common Lisp. It seems that even
Java will have it, using a library ( https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/
).
I know about 'property' function
Artur Siekielski a écrit :
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
something other than the default you need to write it anyway more
explicitly.
I see some problems with your approach:
1.
Artur Siekielski a écrit :
On Oct 11, 4:21 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, it turns out to be a lot less work to deal with that
occasionally than to always deal with lugging around internal
attributes and external properties when they're really not needed. By
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:46:12 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:04:53 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
something other than
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:58:48 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:46:12 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:04:53 +, Artur Siekielski wrote:
1. If I use instance field 'name' which is accessed directly by other
classes,
and later I decide to
On Oct 11, 7:42 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I don't get it. If I want to customize the access to a normal
attribute I simply turn it into a property.
I *think* I understand Artur's problem: he wants to be able to add
(for example) clean-up and validation code to
On Oct 11, 12:48 pm, Artur Siekielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi.
I would like to have declarative properties in Python, ie. something
like slots definitions in defclass in Common Lisp. It seems that even
Java will have it, using a library (https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/
).
I know
On Oct 11, 7:48 am, Artur Siekielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I know about 'property' function in Python, but it's normal usage
isn't declarative, because I have to code imperatively getters and
setters:
class Person(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self._name = name
def
On Oct 11, 7:04 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could take it even further by removing the need to repeat the
attribute's name twice. Currently this can done only through
metaclasses but in the future a class decorator would be even
better:
Replying to myself here, but
27 matches
Mail list logo
