In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had the same feeling when I started, coming from a C++ background, I
> forgot about self a lot, creating local copies of what should be an
> assign to a class instance, or methods that could not be found because
> I forgot 'self' .
>
> Now I am 'kinda' used to it, as every language has some draw backs
> (you can't please all). But, what about something in between like only
> using the dot (.) for a shorter notation?
>
> self.some_var = True
>
> Could become:
>
> .some_var = True
>
> Which basically shows about the same thing, but you leave 'self' out
> of the syntax. Ofcourse it should not be allowed to break a line
> between the dot and the keywords, else Python would never know what to
> do;
>
> my_class()
> .my_var = True
>
> Should not be parsed the same as;
>
> my_class().my_var = True
>
> Just a suggestion. I am pretty happy with self, but I could settle for
> a shorter version if possible.
>
> - Jorgen
Hmmm... I like this idea. Would you put a dot in the argument of a
class method?
def afcn(.,x,y):
# stuff here
??
I still like it. self remains a wart on python for me after 5 years of
use despite a deep love of the language and developers' community.
--
-- Lou Pecora
When I was a kid my parents moved a lot, but I always found them.
(R.Dangerfield)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
