Steve Holden wrote: > "none <"@bag.python.org wrote: > It seems particularly odd to want to put getters and setters behind > property access. What does the extra layer buy you?
The purpose is that there is more to the accessors then I posted. The setters do some 'mark dirty' bookeeping whenever the object state changes. (I had coded something similar in a prior project but had forgotten a bit of my own work...in that project the setters also did some event signaling as the objects were part of an Observer-Observable pattern) The getters also have some code in them for dealing with default values if the given variable behind the property does not exist (which happened when I was pickling objects and the class structure changed over time; it was helpful to be able to have the getter be able to check if the variable existed and, if not, provide a default value...a way of migrating objects to new class definitions) So, the use of properties allowed me let clients of the class to use direct access syntax... o.value versues o.value() or o.value = 123 versus o.value(123) ...but still allow me to do the bookkeeping needed for my object state. The use of the _getProperty() and _setProperty() and using lambdas in the actual property definition allowed me to have a default setter/getter of sorts so I didn't need to write a seperate getter and setter method for each variable Take care, Jay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
