Re: [Pyobjc-dev] Default to returning (void)?

[Marc-Antoine P. <map...@ac...>]

Le 04-02-16, =E0 00:00, b.bum a =E9crit :
> Barring automated intelligence, being able to do something like the=20
> following would be preferable to the crypting exposed signatures we=20
> have today.
>
>     def setContent_(self, someContent):
>         print "Setting content...."
>         self._content =3D someContent
>     setContent_ =3D selector(setContent_, type=3D'setter')
> 	objc.makeSetter(setContent_) # this would be even better
>
> 	def takeAction_(self, sender):
> 		pass
> 	takeAction_ =3D selector(takeAction_, type=3D'action')

...
Le 04-02-16, =E0 00:11, Bob Ippolito a =E9crit :
> Why not objc.getter / objc.setter / objc.action?  This is really why=20=

> Python needs a way to decorate functions that isn't so f*!@#!ing ugly.

I am just a clueless lurker, but +1 to having those transformations=20
sooner rather than later, with as nice a name as you all can devise. If=20=

we also get syntax sugar at some point, as per Michael Hudson's post,=20
all the better, but I feel that we (PyObjC users) need a way to say=20
those things that does not depend on ObjC selector syntax.

Aside: I just had a look at the Cocoa Bindings documentation, and was=20
very impressed. I do hope we will be able to exploit this from PyObjC=20
as seamlessly as possible, and if my (still very, very limited)=20
understanding of PyObjC serves me right, following the K-V standards is=20=

still a stumbling block, and this would definitely help. Please correct=20=

me if I got it all wrong, and it is totally unrelated after all!

Marc-Antoine