Steven Bethard wrote: > David Isaac wrote: > > Le mercredi 06 septembre 2006 16:33, Alan Isaac a écrit : > >>> Suppose a class has properties and I want to change the > >>> setter in a derived class. If the base class is mine, I can do this: > >>> http://www.kylev.com/2004/10/13/fun-with-python-properties/ > >>> Should I? (I.e., is that a good solution?) > > > > "Maric Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Why not ? This ontroduce the notion of public getter a la C++/Java while > > the > >> property is overloadable by itself (as below), but it's correct design > > IMHO. > > > > More support for lambda, it seems... > > Well, lambda's not going away[1], but there's no *need* for lambda here. > It could be written as::
Sure, it *could*; whether it *should* is a different issue. I can't imagine a case for absolute *need* of lambda, but there are several cases where it is probably the best way, such as the one of this thread. George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
