I like python properties, I really do. Properties allow you to convert explicit setters and getters into lean code while keeping control of your operation. Instead of this

current_mode = state.mode()

with properties you can write a much more pleasant

state.mode = EditorMode.INSERT
current_mode = state.mode

In both cases, if it weren't for the magic of properties, you would get direct access to a member, but if you create your class like this

class State(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self._mode = EditorMode.COMMAND

    def mode(self):
        return self._mode

    def mode(self, value):
        self._mode = value

the two decorated methods are called automatically. This gives you a chance for validating the passed value, for example, or using smart tricks like caching if getting the value is slow, basically the same tricks you would obtain by traditional accessor methods, but with a better syntax and without violating encapsulation.

That said, I noticed a few minor things with properties that are good to point out.


Imagine that you find "mode" too poor as a name. and you decide to use editor_mode instead. If you had an accessor method, you would refactor setMode() to setEditorMode(). If any part of your code still calls setMode(), you get an exception.

With a property, the same refactoring implies a change from state.mode to state.editor_mode. However, if other parts of your code still use state.mode = something, you will not get an exception. In fact, it's trivially correct. This could produce hard-to-find bugs.

No callbacks

While you can store or pass around state.setEditorMode as a callback, you can't achieve the same effect with a property, not trivially at least. No, you can't use a lambda, because assignment is forbidden in a lambda.


You can certainly mock a property, but requires a bit more care. Nothing impossible, but if you learn the mock module, you have to go on that extra bit if you want to cover properties.

Soft-returning a set operation details

Sometimes you might want your setter to return state information about the set operation. One trivial example may be True or False, depending if the operation was successful or not. You can certainly throw an exception for this specific case, but your mileage may vary depending on the specifics of your problem and what "looks better" for your design. A property does not give you flexibility to return a value during set.

Only one value at a time

If your setters are connected to some notification system, you might want to set multiple values at once to trigger a single notification. Once again, it's a minor problem: you can use a special property accepting a tuple. For example, if you have values v1 and v2, on class Foo, you could have something like

class Foo(object): 
    def __init__(self): 
        self._v1 = None 
        self._v2 = None 
    def v1(self): 
        return self._v1 
    def v1(self, value): 
        self._v1 = v1 
        # notify listeners 
    def v2(self): 
        return self._v2 
    def v2(self, value): 
        self._v2 = v2 
        # notify listeners 
    def values(self): 
        return (self._v1, self._v2) 
    def values(self, value_tuple): 
        self._v1, self._v2 = value_tuple 
        # notify listeners 

f.values = (1,2)


There's some kind of magic behind properties that you can't perceive to be there when you read client code. For example, code like this

myobj.my_foo = 5

generally makes you think of a simple assignment taking place, but this is not the case if my_foo is a property. Maybe naming convention could disambiguate? I am not a fan of the strict PEP-8 requirements on naming of methods, so one could potentially decide for

myobj.myProperty = 5
myobj.my_member_var = 3

I am thinking out loud here, and I don't have a strong opinion on this issue. That said, properties are definitely cool and will make your interfaces much more pleasant, so I definitely recommend their use, if no other constraints prevent you to do so.