easy properties

>> it struck me that if you had set_(), get_() and del_() setup for
>> assignment in the root object, then you could streamline this example
>> and remove "prop", or am i missing something?
>>
>>
>> Proto1 = Object()
>> with Proto1:
>>     x=6
>>     with x:
>>         def get_():
>>             print "return ",super.x
>>             return super.x
>>         def set_(v):
>>             super.x = v
>>             print "set ",super.x,v
>>             return v
>>         def del_():
>>             print "attempt to delete (correct response)"

>When I originally proposed properties a long time ago in the mailing list
>this is exactly what I proposed.  You can check the archives.  I think it
>turned out to be too simple too implement.   You can either check the
>archives for the old discussion or you can try to work out the details for
>yourself.   I may be wrong but it didn't work for me when I went through >the exercise before.

>BTW: super doesn't do what you want here.  super works with prototype >links, not attribute ownership.  That is why my proto implementation >makes "self" point to the attribute owner (Proto1).   This way you can 
>just say self.x to get to that level.

actually, what i was thinking was 'super.x' finds x one layer up by searching up scopes, then does a get_ on the prototype of this, and so bypasses the redefinition, and actually returns x's value.

so, is it recursive prefixes you need for this?

ie 'super.self.x'

i had already been thinking that 'outer.outer.symbol' would be useful.

__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp