Is a "real" C-Python possible?

[Chris Mellon]

On Dec 12, 2007 12:53 PM, George Sakkis <george.sakkis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:12 pm, Christian Heimes <li... at cheimes.de> wrote:
>
> > Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > > class A(object):
> > >     foo = property:
> > >         def fget(self):
> > >             return self._foo
> > >         def fset(self, value):
> > >             self._foo = value
> >
> > > which was translated as follows:
> >
> > > class A(object):
> > >     def thunk():
> > >         def fget(self):
> > >             return self._foo
> > >         def fset(self, value):
> > >             self._foo = value
> > >         return vars()
> > >     foo = propery(**thunk())
> > >     del thunk
> >
> > Python 2.6 and 3.0 have a more Pythonic way for the problem:
> >
> > class A(object):
> >     @property
> >     def foo(self):
> >         return self._foo
> >
> >     @foo.setter
> >     def foo(self, value)
> >         self._foo = value
> >
> >     @foo.deletter
> >     def foo(self)
> >         del self._foo
> >
> > class B(A):
> >     # one can even overwrite the getter in a subclass
> >     @foo.getter
> >     def foo(self):
> >         return self._foo * 2
> >
> > Christian
>
> This is by definition Pythonic since it was conceived by the BDFL.It
> is also certainly an improvement over the current common practice of
> polluting the class namespace with private getters and setters. Still
> it's a kludge compared to languages with builtin support for
> properties.


How exactly is this a kludge? This is almost identical syntax (but
with less indentation) to a C# property declaration. The only thing
that's simpler is auto-generation of trivial accessors via a
decoration, but those are useless in Python so only the case of
getters and setters that actually do something needs to be addressed.

If the only thing that's not a "kludge" is direct syntax support for a
feature, you've set a pretty high and uselessly arbitrary bar.