[Python-Dev] Definining properties - a use case for class decorators?

Tue Oct 18 05:10:50 CEST 2005

On Mon, 2005年10月17日 at 22:24, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > IMO, there's not enough advantage in having the property() call before
> > the functions than after.
>> Maybe you didn't see the use case that Greg had in mind? He wants to
> be able to override the getter and/or setter in a subclass, without
> changing the docstring or having to repeat the property() call. That
> requires us to do a late binding lookup based on a string.

True, I missed that use case. But can't you already support
override-ability just by refactoring the getter and setter into separate
methods? IOW, the getter and setter isn't overridden, but they call
other methods that implement the core functionality and that /are/
overridden. Okay, that means a few extra methods per property, but that
still doesn't seem too bad.
> If you can think of a solution that looks better than mine, you're a genius.

Oh, I know that's not the case, but it's such a tempting challenge, I'll
try anyway :).
class A(object):
 def __init__(self):
 self._x = 0
 def set_x(self, x):
 self._set_x(x)
 def _set_x(self, x):
 print 'A._set_x()'
 self._x = x
 def get_x(self):
 return self._get_x()
 def _get_x(self):
 print 'A._get_x()'
 return self._x
 x = property(get_x, set_x)
class B(A):
 def _set_x(self, x):
 print 'B._set_x()'
 super(B, self)._set_x(x)
 def _get_x(self):
 print 'B._get_x()'
 return super(B, self)._get_x()
a = A()
b = B()
a.x = 7
b.x = 9
print a.x
print b.x
Basically A.get_x() and A.set_x() are just wrappers to make the property
machinery work the way you want.
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20051017/da1f0a5b/attachment.pgp