Hello,

> > from property_support import hasProperties, Property
> >
> > @hasProperties
> > class Sphere(object):
> > def setRadius(self, value):
> > ... some setter implementation ...
> > radius=Property(default=1.0, set=setRadius, type=(int, float))
> > color=Property(default='black', allowNone=True)
> >
> > This is a cleaner syntax if you need automatic default
> > setter/getter implementations with type checking, default values,
> > etc.
>
> Well, I think @hasProperties is very ugly. Such things always look
> like a dirty trick. The programmer wonders why the language cannot
> detect by itself that there are properties in this class.

If you do not include the @hasProperties class decorator, then
radius=Property(...) means that radius is a class attribute with a Property
instance as it's value, nothing special. If you also include the class
decorator, then it takes an additional meaning. In this case the decorator
should remove the Property instance from the class and turn it into a real
property. This is not magic. This is a possible use case of the new class
decorator feature.

Properties are very useful, since ordinary attribute access can be
transparently replaced with properties if the developer needs to add code
when it's set or needs to calculate it's value whenever it is read.

As an additional benefit this could allow developers to implement change
events for properties that allows any number of observers to monitor property
changes. This could be very useful in GUI programming, for example.

Regards, Viktor