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

[Duncan Booth]

Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote:
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> 
>>>> The compiled code differs.
>>> I *strongly* doubt that.  Properties are designed to be transparent 
to
>>> user code that access atrributes through the usual dotted name
>>> notation precisely so that class code can be changed from
>>>    x = ob
>>> to
>>>    x = property(get_x, set_x, del_x)
>>> without changing user code.
>> 
>> He was talking about C# with that statement. In C#, the compiled code
>> differs depending on whether you use a property or an attribute. Or 
at
>> least that's how I interpreted it.
> 
> Checking back, I see now that Luis Z. went from Python
> "It boggles me when I see python code with properties that only set 
and
> get the attribute, or even worse, getters and setters for that
> purpose. " to C#, and that Duncan was seemingly responding to the C# 
> part.  If C# is like that, how inconvenient.

It's a long enough thread that I can't see anyone faulting you for 
falling asleep half way through my post.

C# forces you to spend a lot of time writing trivial getters and 
setters. They've 'improved' it in the more recent versions: you no 
longer have to write any body at all for a trivial getter or setter and 
the compiler will generate one for you provided you have declared the 
property with a leading capital letter and a private attribute with the 
same name but a lowercase letter. Ick.

> 
>> You are of course correct as to how Python does it.
> 
> I guess I am spoiled ;-).
> 
That's why we're all here.



-- 
Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com