Any syntactic cleanup likely for Py3? And what about doc standards?

[Steve Holden]

Ferenczi Viktor wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>>> from property_support import hasProperties, Property
>>>
>>> @hasProperties
>>> class Sphere(object):
>>>     def setRadius(self, value):
>>>         ... some setter implementation ...
>>>     radius=Property(default=1.0, set=setRadius, type=(int, float))
>>>     color=Property(default='black', allowNone=True)
>>>
>>> This is a cleaner syntax if you need automatic default setter/getter
>>> implementations with type checking, default values, etc
> 
>> I really distaste this "etc." in your description. In the end you
>> promote endless lists of command line parameters to configure every
>> possible function. I also doubt that the solution is more clean but
>> arbitray instead.
> 
> Py3K does not enforce any particular use of the class decorator function. This 
> was only an example.
> 
>> My own guess why properties are not promoted with more emphasis is
>> that they lead to cargo cult programming i.e. everyone starts to use
>> property syntax even when usual attributes are sufficient. So the
>> syntax might even be intentionally ugly.
> 
> AFAIK there is no such a thing as "intentionally ugly" in the Python language. 
> I've never read this sentence before in manuals, tutorials, etc.
> 
Perhaps not, but ...

  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056846.html

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd           http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb      http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------