Charles D Hixson wrote: > Peter Otten wrote: >> Charles D Hixson wrote: >> >> >>> I want a hundred or so read-only variables, and I'm not sure the best >>> way to achieve it. >>> >> >> What do you really want to do? I recommend that you forget about bondage >> and rely upon displine: >> >> class Test(object): >> """Never change an attribute with an uppercase name.""" >> SIMPLE = "simple example working" >> >> Now that was easy... >> >> Peter >> >> > What I'm doing it translating Java code which has a large number of > "public static final (type)" variables.
Ah, Java, the class is an artefact of the language then, and my example becomes SIMPLE = "simple example working" > As to your answer ... yes, and with good discipline you can write object > oriented code in C and never need a garbage collector. It's *not* a > good answer. Before I'd chose that one, I'd make it necessary to Hmm, if you were to choose between a Java dialect without garbage collection or without the 'final' keyword, would you throw a coin? > instantiate the class before testing the value of it's constants. It's > just that that seems to be a silly requirement, so I'd like to avoid Silly or not, it keeps your code simpler, and simplicity just cannot be overvalued. > it. (That's the "solution" that I currently have working with > __getattr__.) I'm confident that after you have been coding in Python for a while the Javaisms will wither away. For now, if you feel that uppercase module-level names are too big a leap I suggest that you add a __setattr__() method that records any attempts to modify read-only attributes. That way you'll have a way to learn whether that particular safety net was a useful investment or just dead code. Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
