Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #110143
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Method Chaining |
| Date | 2016-06-19 09:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.137.1466349266.2288.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <CAB1GNpRLRNDQ3f4a7MBeBXZqO+9ypR-uEEGW85arOwEimsQsdQ@mail.gmail.com> <5765B36F.5010506@stoneleaf.us> <CAB1GNpSStN+eQfwyMk02QbaRQscn5DSK-FwNozXE+2Gf0EYPAA@mail.gmail.com> <5766B3E1.2020807@stoneleaf.us> <dcbfb505-5a4b-a4af-51d3-f6ee78923cac@gmail.com> |
On 06/19/2016 09:01 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 06/19/2016 04:56 AM, Joonas Liik wrote: >> On 18 June 2016 at 23:47, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> On 06/18/2016 07:05 AM, Joonas Liik wrote: > >>>> the leading dot does not resolve the ambiguity that arises from: >>>> >>>> with ob_a: >>>> with ob_b: >>>> .attr_c = 42 # which object are we modifying right now? >>> >>> >>> The innermost one. Why would it be anything else? >> >> What if ob_b does not have attribute attr_c but ob_a does? > > Good question. I would say that _only_ the innermost with object is > searched, and if it doesn't have the requested attribute an > AttributeError is raised. Otherwise, as you say, it could be a > nightmare to maintain. But that wouldn't work either because it would make it impossible to *set* attributes on an object. If ob_a had attr_c but object ob_b did not, should it set the attribute on ob_b or overwrite the attribute on ob_a? Python's dynamic nature just doesn't lend itself to this kind of ambiguity.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 19:02 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-17 12:39 +1000
Re: Method Chaining Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 04:23 +0000
Re: Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 21:37 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-17 01:13 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 01:38 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-06-17 11:45 +0300
Re: Method Chaining Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-17 19:28 +1000
Re: Method Chaining Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 13:34 +0000
Re: Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:26 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Method Chaining Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 23:10 +0000
Re: Method Chaining Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:48 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:25 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 13:04 +0100
Re: Method Chaining Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 17:05 +0300
Re: Method Chaining Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:42 +0100
Re: Method Chaining Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:35 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 11:16 +0100
Re: Method Chaining Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-18 13:47 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:56 +0300
Re: Method Chaining Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-19 08:01 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 09:14 -0600
Re: Method Chaining Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-19 08:56 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 09:03 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:22 -0700
Re: Method Chaining Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-17 17:02 -0700
csiph-web