Dustan wrote:
> Looking at this interactive session:
>> >>> class A(object):
> def __init__(self, a):
> self.a = a
> def get_a(self): return self.__a
> def set_a(self, new_a): self.__a = new_a
> a = property(get_a, set_a)
>>> >>> class B(A):
> b = property(get_a, set_a)
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "<pyshell#11>", line 1, in <module>
> class B(A):
> File "<pyshell#11>", line 2, in B
> b = property(get_a, set_a)
> NameError: name 'get_a' is not defined
> >>> class B(A):
> b = a
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "<pyshell#13>", line 1, in <module>
> class B(A):
> File "<pyshell#13>", line 2, in B
> b = a
> NameError: name 'a' is not defined
> >>>
>> B isn't recognizing its inheritence of A's methods get_a and set_a
> during creation.
>> Why am I doing this? For an object of type B, it makes more sense to
> reference the attribute 'b' than it does to reference the attribute
> 'a', even though they are the same, in terms of readability.
Clarification: The code given is obviously not the actual code. I doubt
it would really make a difference in types A and B given here, but for
what I'm actually doing, it makes a big difference.
> Is there any way to make this work as intended?
