Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:08:03 +0100, Peter Otten wrote:
>
>> These things are nice to write as long as you omit the gory details, but
>> personally I don't want to see the style it favours in my or other
>> people's code.
>
> There's not really a lot of difference
That cuts both ways ;)
> between:
>
> obj = MyClass()
> obj.spam()
> obj.eggs()
> obj.cheese()
>
> and
>
> obj = MyClass().spam().eggs().cheese()
>
>
> except the first takes up a lot more vertical space.
I've not yet run short of vertical space ;)
> Chained method calls is idiomatic in some languages.
Languages with mutable objects?
> If there is a problem with it, it is that
> it doesn't make it clear that each method call is being used only for its
> side-effects, rather than it being a series of distinct objects. But in
> my opinion that flaw is a very minor one.
>
> The nice thing about using an explicit method chaining call rather than
> building your class to support it by default is that the initial call to
> the adaptor signals that everything that follows is called only for the
> side-effects.
>
> obj = chained(MyClass()).spam().eggs().cheese()
obj = MyClass(); obj.spam(); obj.eggs(); obj.cheese()
OK, that one is disgusting...
Anyway, I'd like to see a sequence of method names taken from actual code
that profits from this chaining pattern.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
