On 06/27/10 12:01, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 8:24 pm, WANG Cong <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Understand, but please consider my proposal again, if we switched to: >> >> setattr(foo, 'new_attr', "blah") >> >> by default, isn't Python still dynamic as it is? (Please teach me if I >> am wrong here.) >> >> This why I said the questionable thing is not so much related with dynamic >> programming or not. > > Because it makes dynamicism harder to do. > > Like I said, Python's goal isn't simply to make dynamicism possible, > it's to make it easy. > > "foo.new_attr = 'blah'" is easier than using setattr. >
I do agree it's easier, but why do we need this to be easy? This is really my question. Also, since it is easier, why not drop the harder one, setattr()? -- Live like a child, think like the god. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
