Re: [Python-Dev] Declaring setters with getters
I'm not sure about the name "propset" ... Maybe something like "setproperty" would be better.
I think not. Saying "setproperty" has too many ambiguous mental parsings. When does "set" take place -- assigning a value to a property is different defining the property itself. Is "set" a verb so that we're talking about a property of sets/frozensets. Is "set" a completed action so that the property has been set. Let's stick with "propset" which has precedent as an svn action and serves as a short, simple mnemonic to the functionality. Also, I find that these unique words are easier to search for. I once co-owned a magazine called Know Your Boston and it was very difficult for clients to find using Google. Raymond
"Raymond Hettinger"
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Let's stick with "propset" which has precedent as an svn action and serves as a short, simple mnemonic to the functionality.
But if we're going to have "propset", it raises the question of why there isn't a "propget". -- Greg
At 11:11 AM 11/2/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Let's stick with "propset" which has precedent as an svn action and serves as a short, simple mnemonic to the functionality.
But if we're going to have "propset", it raises the question of why there isn't a "propget".
Which can be eliminated by having property.setter, especially in the form: @property def foo(self): ... @foo.setter def foo(self, value): ... @foo.deleter def foo(self): ... This even preserves Guido's "read-only + read-write" use case, and saves us a builtin.
On 11/1/07, Phillip J. Eby
At 11:11 AM 11/2/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Let's stick with "propset" which has precedent as an svn action and serves as a short, simple mnemonic to the functionality.
But if we're going to have "propset", it raises the question of why there isn't a "propget".
Which can be eliminated by having property.setter, especially in the form:
@property def foo(self): ...
@foo.setter def foo(self, value): ...
@foo.deleter def foo(self): ...
This even preserves Guido's "read-only + read-write" use case, and saves us a builtin.
Although it begs the question what happened to @foo.getter. I'm only +0 on this -- I can't quite pinpoint what's wrong with it but it doesn't fell 100% right. Maybe I just need to sleep on it. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
participants (5)
-
Greg Ewing -
Guido van Rossum -
Phillip J. Eby -
Raymond Hettinger -
Terry Reedy