Accessors in Python (getters and setters)

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

mystilleef wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> 
>>mystilleef wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>>>Python doesn't have any philosophy with regards to naming identifiers.
>>
>>Yes it does.
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
>>>>But they are in Python and that is the python's philosophy. All attribute or
>>>>method not beginning with an '_' *is* API.
>>>
>>>Right, and what if I want to change a private API to a public one.
>>
>>Then you provide a public API on top of the private one.
>>
>>class MyClass(object):
>>  def __init__(self, ...):
>>     self._attr = XXX
>>
>>  # seems like we really have enough use
>>  # cases to justify exposing _imp_attr
>>  @apply
>>  def attr():
>>    def fget(self):
>>      return self._attr
>>    def fset(self):
>>      self._attr = attr
>>    return property(**locals())
>>
>>
>>  def _method(self, ...):
>>    # code here
>>
>>  # seems like we really have enough use
>>  # cases to justify exposing _imp_method
>>  method = _impmethod
>>
>>Note that none of this actually breaks encapsulation.
> 
> 
> Ha! Just as bad as getters and setter.

What point are you trying to make here ? Of course a computed attribute
is just syntactic sugar for getters and setters - what else could it be?

The difference is that you don't need to write explicit getters/setters
beforehand, nor to use a "behaviour" semantic.

> 
>>>How
>>>does that solve my naming issues.
>>
>>How could this solve *your* naming issue ? This is totally unrelated.
>>You choose a bad name for a *public* symbol.
> 
> 
> My point exactly! It doesn't solve my problem!

What do you hope ? Something that cures cancer ? Please enlighten us and
explain how explicit getters/setters would have solved the problem of
badly named getters/setters ?


-- 
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb at xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"