Artur Siekielski a écrit :
> On Oct 11, 2:27 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But why? Default getters and setters are unnecessary and if you need
>> something other than the default you need to write it anyway more
>> explicitly.
>
> I see some problems with your approach:
>
> 1. If I use instance field 'name' which is accessed directly by other
> classes,
> and later I decide to implement nonstandard getter, I must refactor
> 'Person' class
> and in some places change 'name' to '_name' (assuming this is now the
> field's name).
Why so ?
class Toto(object):
def __iinit__(self, name):
self.name = name
@apply
def name():
def fget(self):
print "getting %s.name" % self
return self._name
def fset(self, val):
print "setting %s.name to %s" % (self, val)
self._name = name
def say_hello(self):
print "Hello, my name is %s" % self.name
t = Toto('bruno')
t.say_hello()
> The problem is that I cannot automatically change 'name' to '_name'
> everywhere, because
> in some places I want public property value (eg. validated and
> formatted), and in other
> places raw property value.
But then, you do know where you want the raw value, don't you ? And this
would be for special cases that didn't exist before this refactoring,
anyway ?
> 2. Properties define (a part of) public interface of a class.
So do attributes.
> When
> using fields for public
> access, you must tell this explicitly in documentation, or use name
> convention. And public
> fields definition is mixed with private fields, which doesn't happen
> when using properties.
I just don't understand what you're saying here. As long as you did not
prefix a name with an underscore, it's part of the API. And anyway,
nothing (except common sens) will prevent anyone to mess with
implementation attributes.
> 3. Using properties as first-class objects
Which they are already - I don't know of anything that isn't a
"first-class" object in Python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
