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

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 03:46:29 CET 2009


On Jan 19, 6:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano
<ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:07:50 -0800, Russ P. wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 5:09 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky... at uh.cu> wrote:
>
> >> Russ, I think _you_ are missing the point. If the attribute is already
> >> public, why does it need properties? Why would a programmer go to the
> >> trouble of adding them manually, just to get one level of indirection
> >> for an already public attribute?
>
> > You don't understand the purpose of properties -- and you tell me that
> > *I* am the one missing the point?
>
> Well, I *thought* I did, and (unlike Bruno) I'm not hostile to the idea
> Russ is proposing. But I must admit it's not clear to me why Russ thinks
> it is a good idea to automatically turn this:
>
> class Parrot(object):
>     def __init__(self):
>         self.x = 1
>
> into this:
>
> class Parrot(object):
>     def __init__(self):
>         self._x = 1
>     def getx(self):
>         return self._x
>     def setx(self, value):
>         self._x = value
>     x = property(getx, setx)
>
> Because frankly, that's how I read Russ' explanation for what Scala is
> doing. Have I missed something?
>
> --
> Steven




More information about the Python-list mailing list