Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #18238
| References | <g6k1t8xg0a.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> <roy-C73AC0.18242330122011@news.panix.com> <mailman.4256.1325288188.27778.python-list@python.org> <roy-06A099.18391630122011@news.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 10:47 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.4257.1325288842.27778.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote: > In article <mailman.4256.1325288188.27778.python-list@python.org>, > Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You know a Python programmer's been at your C++ code when it opens: >> #define class struct > > Why stop there? > > #define private public Probably yeah, do both. Anyway, life's so much easier when you don't have to write trivial getter/setter methods (and then maintain them). I've never had a situation where I've changed a private member while keeping the getters and setters unchanged; the ONLY benefit accessor methods have ever given to me personally has been logging (and granted, that is hard to do without them - since you can't override __getitem__ in C++ - but how often do you really need that facility?). I used to believe in the separation of interface from implementation. Then I realised that most of the separation was transparent anyway, and gave up on it. And then realised why the separation is a good idea after all. :) ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2011-12-30 20:40 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor "Günther Dietrich" <gd.usenet@spamfence.net> - 2011-12-30 22:00 +0100
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2011-12-31 20:55 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-12-30 16:08 -0500
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 21:14 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Jason Friedman <jason@powerpull.net> - 2011-12-30 21:18 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-30 22:21 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-30 22:13 +0000
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-30 18:24 -0500
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 10:36 +1100
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-30 18:39 -0500
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 10:47 +1100
Re: mutually exclusive arguments to a constructor Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2011-12-31 20:59 +0000
csiph-web