[Edu-sig] quantum instance

[Arthur]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kirby Urner [mailto:urnerk at qwest.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:45 PM
> To: 'Arthur'; edu-sig at python.org
> Subject: RE: [Edu-sig] quantum instance
> 
> > > Apparently many programmers felt this lack, including Guido, and added
> > > the missing capability.
> >
> > Can you please support your statement!
> >
> 
> The fact that it was added isn't evidence programmers wanted it added?

Though not necessarily for the purposes you seem to suppose.

> 
> > Guido added properties to the language. No doubt. He says they are about
> > "managed attributes". His example in the original presentation of the
> use
> > of properties was quite narrow. In fact it was only in referring back to
> > it that I feel I began to get my head on straight about what properties
> > were really intended to be about (IMO).
> >
> > I believe I am interpreting his purpose much more carefully then are
> you.
> >
> > You feel otherwise.
> 
> The whole idea of attributes managed through setters and getters
> (mutators)
> is a known design pattern.  SmallTalk wouldn't even allow direct
> assignment
> to attributes, right?  *All* access to variables is "managed."

> Setters and getters are built into C# as well, at the syntax level.  Not
> because of Python though.  We're talking about a feature of the OO model
> that's been around for awhile.  Python acquired this feature later in its
> development, but not out of the blue.

Python is not Java or C# or Smalltalk.

I know - because if it were I wouldn't be programming in it.
 
> What's wrong with "group think"?  I know we're supposed to reflexively
> dislike the sound of that, but when a community reaches a consensus, based
> on professional history and prior experience, must it always be wrong?
> 
> I feel the explanations put forward for why the property feature was added
> have made plenty of sense.  

I have heard 3 or 4 explanations. And don't see much logical connection
between them.

It sometimes appears that community ethos is to work backward form the fact
that it is there, to the knowing explanation for why its good its there.  

My only objection to it being there - in fact - is the lack of consensus as
to the compelling reason it is necessary.  There seems to be agreement, in
fact, on only this one aspect of the reason for its presence as a built_in
function.  The fact that the reason is compelling. 

Whatever the hell it is.

Art