On 30Sep2017 20:07, Bill <bill_nos...@whoknows.net> wrote:
think all of this would have made a bit more sense (to me), if instead of just
"@property", the syntax was "@property.getter".
Perhaps, but nobody wants to type this. Also many properties are ready only, so
that is the default.
Now I am forced to ask the question, why did they use the underscore (on
temperature) in the example on the bottom of this page? Is one forced to
introduce new identifiers in order to define a setter?
https://www.programiz.com/python-programming/property
class Celsius:
def __init__(self, temperature = 0):
self._temperature = temperature
[...snip...]
@property
def temperature(self):
print("Getting value")
return self._temperature
@temperature.setter
def temperature(self, value):
if value < -273:
raise ValueError("Temperat
print("Setting value")
self._temperature = value
because the name self.temperature is taken by the property, one must store
underlying values in a different name. Since the property is one to one with
the actual internal value here and they're just using the setter protery to do
a sanity check, they named the internal value very similarly. By using
"_temperature" they (a) keep the name very similar and (b) make it clear that
the internal value is "private", not intended for direct use by code outside
the class.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au> (formerly c...@zip.com.au)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
