Idea: __all__ in classes?
Michael Hudson
mwh at python.net
Fri Jan 17 06:32:51 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Jan 17 06:32:51 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Idea: __all__ in classes?
- Next message (by thread): Idea: __all__ in classes?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
mlh at furu.idi.ntnu.no (Magnus Lie Hetland) writes: > I just had an idea: Perhaps the following could be a useful convention > for private attributes (and methods)? As a gut reaction, Heck No. I'm a fan of cooperative encapsulation. [snip heresy <wink>] > With properties and metaclasses this should be fairly easy to > implement. (The private stuff I've already implemented with properties > a while back.) How do you distinguish access from inside the class and access outside? > Of course this need not be the default behaviour; a superclass with > a suitable __metaclass__ attribute would be sufficient... In which case ... > I guess my question is whether this seems like a good idea at all... > And if it, perhaps, should be proposed as a PEP for inclusion in the > standard libs or something? ... no. All IMHO, of course. Hmm, maybe pychecker could look for this sort of thing, though. Or you could issue warnings on "inappropriate" accesses. Strangely, I find that idea much more acceptable, and I'm not quite sure why. Cheers, M. -- The bottom tier is what a certain class of wanker would call "business objects" ... -- Greg Ward, 9 Dec 1999
- Previous message (by thread): Idea: __all__ in classes?
- Next message (by thread): Idea: __all__ in classes?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list