Re: Re: vote on prop keyword

Mark Hahn wrote:

>...
> 
> Why are you using myprop.foo as a protoype?  Myprop.foo works fine for
> me:
> 
> O>> import myprop
> O>> print myprop.foo
> Get foo

Good point. Do I understand that in the future my error would raise an 
exception? If an object is not explicitly marked as a prototype then I 
guess it won't be callable, right?

> I didn't look at your proposal because I assumed it was to fix my
> non-existant problem.  Do you still want me to give it a look?

#1. I think it is slightly un-Prothonic and un-Pythonic to have magic 
base classes. Magic properties are more common in the language.

#2. When it is a property of the object you have to be careful with 
those objects if you want to pass them around in various contexts. For 
instance a pickler might have code like:

#!/usr/local/bin/prothon

object pickler:
    object_I_am_working_with = None

    def init_(obj):
        self.object_I_am_working_with = obj

    def pickle():
        # would of course do something more interesting
        print self.object_I_am_working_with.protos_

p = pickler(5)
p.pickle()

If obj happens to be a property then it will start to have "property 
behaviour" in this context just because it happens to be stored in an 
attribute on an object. The code will work great until "obj" happens to 
be a property.

object problem(Prop):
     pass

p = pickler(problem)
p.pickle()

This would not be a problem with my proposal. The code would only take 
on property behaviour in a context where you explicitly tell it to.

  Paul Prescod