On Feb 5, 3:36 pm, Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano > > <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > For instance, if getting or setting the voltage is an expensive > > operation, you don't want to fool the user into thinking it is a cheap > > attribute access. > > I strongly disagree with this rationale as it violates the Uniform > Access Principle > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_access_principle). Though I > concede Python's builtins don't adhere to the UAP.
And I strongly disagree with the Uniform Access Principle. I want my accesses to an object to be explicitly "data-like" or "method-like", even if Based on the Wikipedia page, Meyer's main reason behind UAP seems to be to minimize the need to break interfaces: the UAP is a means to an end. Python achieves that end without the conforming to UAP, therefore it doesn't need it, and there's no reason to adhere to it. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
