Properties using metaclasses (was: Function/Method Decorator Syntax)
andrew-pythonlist at puzzling.org
Wed Jun 11 14:21:12 CEST 2003
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:00PM +0200, Gerrit Holl wrote:
> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> > class C(object):
> > class x(EvilProperty):
> > """An evil test property"""
> > def get(self):
> > print 'Getting'
> > return 1
> > def set(self, value):
> > print 'Setting to', value
> Just a question: Why would this be evil? I think it is explicit, simple,
> sparse, readable, practical, unambiguous... The only real anti-zen-behaviour
> is that it's nested rather than flat. But for the rest, I don't see the
> problem, what is it?
Because I'm suspicious of metaclasses in general... although this is a
pretty neat solution, and I'm tempted to use it. :)
Of course, the metaclass is behind the scenes, and the result is a simple
property, so there's no lingering weirdness. The only really nasty thing is
that I'm abusing the "class" keyword: when I say "class x(EvilProperty)", x
is not a class. *That's* what I consider evil, and why I hesitate to use
this in real code.
A more extreme example of abusing class was shown to me at PyCon by a fellow
Twisted developer (who shall remain nameless so that he won't get mobbed by
angry hordes ;) ... it looked something like this:
def __new__(cls, name, bases, dict):
return reduce(lambda x,y: x+y, bases, 0)
class C(1, 2, 3, 4, 5):
__metaclass__ = Adder
There's some things the class keyword was just never meant to do.
More information about the Python-list