property() usage - is this as good as it gets?

[alex23]

On Aug 25, 12:42 pm, castironpi <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm baffled.  I don't understand what you write.  

Which is pretty much how I feel about -all- of your posts.

> I think someone in
> my shoes would be justified in dismissing it as either malicious or a
> miscommunication.  

No, it's frustration at the sharp decrease in signal:noise that this
newsgroup has undertaken since your arrival.

> My typical response is, take something I've said in
> context, and show how it fulfills the criteria you describe.

Generally, it's -extremely difficult- understanding your context, for
starters. But how about this, your code snippet from this very thread,
your -first- of two seemingly independent replies to the original
post:

>  def _getbalance( self ):
>    return self._tree.geti(
>      self.where+ self.lookup[ 'balance' ] )
>
>  def _getparent( self ):
>    return self._tree.getI(
>      self.where+ self.lookup[ 'parent' ] )
>
> Where 'balance' and 'parent' could both come from something generic:
>
> balance= property( tree_lookup( 'balance' ) )
> parent= property( tree_lookup( 'parent' ) )

In your 'example', you reference one marked-as-implementation
attribute, two unspecified attributes, one unspecified method and one
unspecified function. That you refer to one function as both 'geti'
and 'getI' leads me to believe this -isn't- workable code and you've
just re-keyed this in without testing.

I've also -no- idea what you're trying to demonstrate here. It's not
clear nor obvious, and I can't see how your _getwhatever methods tie
in with the property definition.

> For instance, "I won't like it if you do" and "I won't think it's
> clever if you do" aren't consistent belief structures, they're fight
> structures.  You have made such claims.

No, what I've stated is I've yet to see -any- code samples that you've
provided be of any real, clear use to -anyone-. This isn't a 'fight
structure', this is an opinion formed by the overwhelming amount of
evidence you keep contributing to this group.

> In the post above, I make two claims, ask two questions, and encourage
> a brainstorm.  I don't see how what you say applies to it.

What you said was: "When brainstorming, don't restrict yourself to
Python syntax-- make
something up, and we'll write Python."

What I'm contesting is your ability to write Python.

Furthermore, people -aren't- posting questions to the "castironpi
hour", they're asking questions to help further their understanding of
Python, not to give you further opportunity to emphasise your
misunderstanding of it. Suggesting they 'brainstorm' without any
understanding of the language itself and that you'll somehow magically
generate Python code for them is, based on what you've written here,
laughable.

> I am willing to change the way I communicate.  I want to communicate
> effectively.  But, until someone takes something I want to say, and
> says it the right way, I can't learn how.  So I wait and write Python,
> and share my frustration with my peers.

Given how many people have publicly killfiled you on this group, I'm
not sure who you consider to be your 'peers'. There was a -lot- of
initial frustration at your post, along with even more dismissal of it
as the output of a poorly written AI experiment.

You're -failing- the Turing test. If that isn't telling you something
is wrong with your communication style, I don't really know what will.

> Lastly, in the syllogism you propose, "not smart enough to debug it",
> you equate maximally clever writing with maximally clever debugging,
> which is clearly wrong.  They are distinct; someone could be better at
> either one than the other.  And besides, your quoted premise "twice as
> hard" is assumed, not proven.

Assumed by someone whose programming knowledge I have a -lot- more
respect for than your's, mostly because Kernighan's is -more than
amply demonstrated-.

Which leads me to reiterate my original statement, only framing it now
as a question: what -real world- applications or systems have you
worked on...in -any- language? I find it difficult to believe you've
ever worked on any, or even more pointedly, had to work on -someone
else's real world code-. Because the sample code fragments you post,
when not broken, at best seem to relate to pointless wankery on your
behalf, without any practical application whatsoever, and at worst
carry deep-seated misunderstandings about how Python works.