Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Luis Zarrabeitia kyrie at uh.cu
Wed Jan 14 16:48:30 CET 2009


On Wednesday 14 January 2009 02:22:45 am Paul Rubin wrote:
> 2. There is also nothing inherent in a dynamic OO language that says
> that class descriptors have to be mutable, any more than strings have
> to be mutable (Python has immutable strings).  I agree that being able
> to modify class descriptors at runtime is sometimes very useful.  The
> feature shouldn't be eliminated from Python or else it wouldn't be
> Python any more.  But those occasions are rare enough that having to
> enable the feature by saying (e.g.) "@dynamic" before the class
> definition doesn't seem like a problem, both for encapsulation

Why don't you do it backwards?
You *can* implement a metaclass that will remove the dynasmism from its 
instances. Do it - I can give you a starting point if you wish.

But most of us are very happy with the dynamic nature of python... I chose 
python _because_ of it.

> and because it can also improve performance.

Btw, for performance, there is __slots__, with the side-effect that it forbids 
attribute creation 'on the fly'.

-- 
Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie)
Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH.
http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie



More information about the Python-list mailing list