[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r43545 - in python/trunk: Doc/lib/libcalendar.tex Lib/calendar.py

[Walter Dörwald]

Tim Peters wrote:

> [Tim, gripes about ...]
>>>> Author: walter.doerwald
>>>> Date: Sat Apr  1 22:40:23 2006
>>>> New Revision: 43545
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>>    python/trunk/Doc/lib/libcalendar.tex
>>>>    python/trunk/Lib/calendar.py
>>>> Log:
>>>> Make firstweekday a simple attribute instead
>>>> of hiding it behind a setter and a getter.
> 
> [Walter][
>> This is because in 2.4 there where no Calendar objects and firstweekday was
>> only setable and getable via module level functions.
> 
> I didn't realize that, of course <blush>.  Skipping the rest ;-),
> then, it would be best to make firstweekday a property on the new base
> class.
> 
>> ...
>> The only thing lost is the range check in the setter.
> 
> Which isn't a good thing to lose.  It's not good that the current
> Calendar constructor skips that sanity check either ("errors should
> never pass silently").

I've changed calendar so that firstweekday is only used modulo 7 
everywhere (There was only one spot missing, all other cases used 
firstweekday modulo 7 anyway.

>> ...
>> Simple attribute access looks much more Pythonic to me than setters and gettes
>> (especially as the attributes of subclasses are simple attributes).
>> Or are you talking about the Calendar class itself?
> 
> Yes, it would be best if Calendar had a property, so that sanity
> checks were performed when setting `firstweekday`, and also if the
> Calendar constructor performed that sanity check (which could happen
> "by magic" if `firstweekday` were a property).

Range checks should no longer be neccessary, as any value works now.

Bye,
    Walter Dörwald