Laser's missing AbstractClass implementation

[edyoshikun]

The Laser's are still missing the abstract class implementation.

Commands that should be here:

• def laser_on():
• def laser_off():
• def set_power():
• def set_cw_mode():
• def set_digital_modulation_mode():
• def check_laser_status():

[ieivanov]

I'm finding the implementation of properties like this a bit confusing:

@property
def pulse_mode(self):
    """
    Toggle Pulse Mode On and Off (1=On)
    """
    self._pulse_mode = self._write_cmd('?PUL')[0]
    return self._pulse_mode

@pulse_mode.setter
def set_pulse_mode(self, mode=0):
    """
    Toggle Pulse Mode On and Off (1=On)
    """
    self._pulse_mode = self._write_cmd('PUL', str(mode))[0]

Based on the name, I would expect set_pulse_mode to be a function taking mode as an argument, for example:

laser.set_pulse_mode(mode=1)

Instead, set_pulse_mode is a property setter and needs to be used as:

laser.set_pulse_mode = 1

I would suggest renaming set_pulse_mode to pulse_mode as in:

@property
def pulse_mode(self):
    """
    Toggle Pulse Mode On and Off (1=On)
    """
    self._pulse_mode = self._write_cmd('?PUL')[0]
    return self._pulse_mode

@pulse_mode.setter
def pulse_mode(self, mode=0):
    """
    Toggle Pulse Mode On and Off (1=On)
    """
    self._pulse_mode = self._write_cmd('PUL', str(mode))[0]

such that the interaction would look like this:

>>>laser.pulse_mode
"0"
>>>laser.pulse_mode = 1
>>>laser.pulse_mode
"1"

An example of this is described here: https://realpython.com/python-getter-setter/#using-properties-instead-of-getters-and-setters-the-python-way

[edyoshikun]

@ieivanov yes, this makes sense. I also agree that having the functions be called set_function_name for the setters is redundant.