Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Steven Bethard a écrit : >> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >>>> I guess as long as your documentation is clear about which >>>> attributes require computation and which don't... >>> >>> Why should it ? [snip] > I believe we simply disagree on weither properties should be used when > it makes sens (from a semantic POV, which doesn't prevent common sens, > thanks) or if they should be restricted to refactoring-life-saver. Now > since the second use implies that some attributes-looking properties of > an object may not be what they looks like - and even worth, may suddenly > become (a little bit) more costly without client code being warned - I > don't see what's your problem with the first one.
I said those kind of expectation violations should be documented, and you said "Why should it?" I gather you really only meant the "Why should it?" in the situation that the computation is extremely minimal. I can understand that, but I'd still like it documented for any objects I use. > Ho, and wrt/ training and expectations, I'm afraid you have to live with > the fact that computed attributes (either properties and custom > descriptors) are alreay widely used. FWIW, may I remind you that a > method is actually a callable returned by a computed attribute ?-) Yep. And it's documented. ;-) STeVe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
