Hi, On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Ole Weidner <oweidner@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
Hi,
I am very much in favor of Steve's proposal of not making the Python API more complex that absolutely necessary.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
I am not saying this approach should be used, at all. Just saying that those parts *can* be implemented. No real python disciple would ever like it, of course -- typed properties! Ugh! :-P
If no 'Python disciple' would like it, it should absolutely not go into the Python language bindings, IMHO.
Ok, I should have been more careful - that remark was a little tongue-in-cheek... By now I am quite convinced that there is no single definition of 'pythonesque' outside of what python core represents. So for me, pythonesque is what can easily be done in python without abusing the language. But ask 3 other people about that, and you'll get 3 or more different answers... *sigh* So I think that the current Bliss attribute interface will not meet the love of python programmers in general. I still think it is pythonesque though, as it cleanly exposes the dict and property interfaces. Best, Andre.
My $0.02.
Cheers, Ole
I am very much in favour of getting this tied down ASAP - however we should not make the python API more complex than needed.
-- Nothing is really difficult...