Op 2005-02-07, John Lenton schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > --cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:53:49PM +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> The fact that a function in a class performs a lot of magic if >> it is called through an instance, that isn't performed otherwise, >> makes python inconsistent here. You may like the arrangement >> (and it isn't such a big deal IMO) but that doesn't make it consistent. > > I vote for accepting the fact (it goes with the "practicality beats > purity" bit,
But before one can produce the "practicality beats purity" argument, one has to accept this isn't pure. That was all I was saying here, python is not consistent/pure here. Now there can be good arguments to have this that offset the inconsistency, but the python people shouldn't then try to argue that it is consistent anyway. > because otherwise all our methods would have to start > with an @instancemethod). This doesn't justify (IMVVHO) a new keyword, > like you (was it you?) seemed to imply (do you really mean for > instancemethod (or somesuch) and classmethod to become keywords?). I > think it's fine the way it is: there's an implicit @instancemethod, > and @staticmethod (which you'd have be the default if I read you > right) has to be explicit, when in classes. I'm not saying I would have it so, I'm saying that would be the pure/consistent way to do it. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
