On Aug 17, 3:05 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> castironpi wrote:
> > 'obj.prop' has an easy access, but
>
> > att= 'prop'
> > getattr( obj, att )
>
> > is much clumsier, while no less useful, maybe more.
>
> maybe more? ok, you *are* utterly and completely unable to post
> anything
castironpi wrote:
'obj.prop' has an easy access, but
att= 'prop'
getattr( obj, att )
is much clumsier, while no less useful, maybe more.
maybe more? ok, you *are* utterly and completely unable to post
anything that makes any sense at all to anyone that uses Python.
plonkeliplonk.
--
htt
On Aug 17, 2:46 pm, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 Aug, 21:29, castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What are the changes, pros and cons, involved in something like:
>
> > obj:att for a dynamic access, and obj.att for static?
>
> A previous proposal and discussion can be f
On 17 Aug, 21:29, castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are the changes, pros and cons, involved in something like:
>
> obj:att for a dynamic access, and obj.att for static?
A previous proposal and discussion can be found here:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0363/
Paul
--
http://mai
Hi all,
Thinking of a syntax for 'getattr' and 'setattr' dynamic access.
'obj.prop' has an easy access, but
att= 'prop'
getattr( obj, att )
is much clumsier, while no less useful, maybe more.
What are the changes, pros and cons, involved in something like:
obj:att for a dynamic access, and obj
