Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Case Statements
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:48:58 +1100
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <mailman.257.1458197342.12893.python-list@python.org>
References: <f30500db-19cb-4de8-81f1-6eb77c28b3b4@googlegroups.com> <30502a2e-0bad-4b0f-a1e8-a2b40b0d7ab9@googlegroups.com> <mailman.181.1458102409.12893.python-list@python.org> <ncb4e0$op1$1@dont-email.me> <ncb6jk$rrm$1@ger.gmane.org> <56E928D4.3000701@rece.vub.ac.be> <ncbac2$qtk$1@ger.gmane.org> <56E93ADD.9040500@rece.vub.ac.be> <ncbeq6$vq$1@ger.gmane.org> <56E961C9.7040008@rece.vub.ac.be> <ncbp2b$ge6$3@ger.gmane.org> <56E97B60.3060402@rece.vub.ac.be> <ncc4tb$6kj$1@ger.gmane.org> <56E9A66E.4030905@rece.vub.ac.be> <mailman.253.1458170061.12893.python-list@python.org> <56e9f7f9$0$1597$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.254.1458174695.12893.python-list@python.org> <56ea0e4f$0$1585$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <dkuujrFcplnU1@mid.individual.net> <56ea4ed2$0$1522$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <56ea4ed2$0$1522$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:105070

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I don't think that property is a similar situation. I think what happens
> here is that the first call to property sets:
>
> # @property def x...
> x = property(x)
>
> Then the second decorator does:
>
> # @x.setter def x...
> x = x.setter(x)
>
> which replaces x with a brand new property object.

Okay. Let's try this.

>>> class Demo:
...     @property
...     def x(self):
...         print("Getting x")
...         return 42
...     @x.setter
...     def x(self, value):
...         print("Setting x to", value)
...
>>> d = Demo()
>>> d.x
Getting x
42
>>> d.x = 1
Setting x to 1


Decorators work. Now let's try NOT using decorators.

>>> class Demo:
...     def x(self):
...         print("Getting x")
...         return 42
...     x = property(x)
...     def x(self, value):
...         print("Setting x to", value)
...     x = x.setter(x)
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "<stdin>", line 8, in Demo
AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'setter'


Since the 'def' line bound the undecorated function to the name 'x',
the decoration underneath *fails*. The only way this could work would
be with a temporary name for either the new function or the decorator:

>>> class Demo:
...     def x(self):
...         print("Getting x")
...         return 42
...     x = property(x)
...     decorator = x.setter
...     def x(self, value):
...         print("Setting x to", value)
...     x = decorator(x)
...     del decorator
...
>>> d = Demo()
>>> d.x
Getting x
42
>>> d.x = 1
Setting x to 1

This is how CPython implements this (it evaluates the decoration
expressions first, leaving them on the stack, then creates the
function, then calls the decorators), but I don't see anywhere that
this is guaranteed in the docs either - the only way I know this is
current behaviour is from trying it (with dis.dis). The documented
equivalence simply doesn't work.

Note, by the way, that I am not in any way criticising the *behaviour*
here. I don't think anything needs to be changed as regards
functionality. And it's not even that big an issue as regards
documentation. It's mainly just an esoteric curiosity.

ChrisA