-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Add support for write only properties #1142
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
It seems fine to me; you can do something like this in pure Python via: Python 3.5.4 (default, Sep 5 2017, 18:32:10)
[GCC 7.2.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> class C():
... def set_var(self, v):
... self._var = v
... var = property(None, set_var)
...
>>> c = C()
>>> c.var
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: unreadable attribute
>>> c.var = 123
>>> so it'd be nice in a PR to duplicate that unreadable attribute error, but aside from that it seems a reasonable feature. |
jagerman
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 7, 2017
py::class_<T>'s `def_property` and `def_property_static` can now take a `nullptr` as the getter to allow a write-only property to be established (mirroring Python's `property()` built-in when `None` is given for the getter). This also updates properties to use the new nullptr constructor internally.
Fixed via #1144. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Issue description
We have a few cases where we have C++ code that has write only properties (just a set method) that we'd like to promote. These are basically identical to def_property_readonly except with just a set method. The current def_property can't be used because it relies on the read function always being there to get docs. The additions we made are:
If you don't think this is appropriate, feel free to close this. Otherwise, I'll submit a PR w/ the updated functions and test cases that we've implemented. If you think it's necessary, I'm sure we could also add def_writeonly and def_writeonly_static for completeness.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: