On Sep 12, 11:35 am, TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 12, 4:40 am, Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ivan Voras wrote: > > > What does "self" have to do with an object model? It's an > > > function/method argument that might as well be hidden in the > > > compiler without ever touching the role it has (if not, why?). I > > > agree that it's needless noise in a language. > > > If this was needless, why do C++ and Java have the "this" pointer? > > "this" in C++ and Java is not shown in the parameter list, which was > what he was > complaining about. He wants > > class MyClass: > def SomeFunction(someParameter): > self.someParameter = someParameter > > not > > class MyClass: > def SomeFunction(self, someParameter): > self.someParameter = someParameter > > The confusing way about the current Python method when you first > encounter it is > why is "self" being passed in when you write the function but not > when you call it. If the compiler is smart enough to know that > > a = MyClass() > a.SomeFunction(12) > > SomeFunction() has a "self" implicitly added to the parameter list, it > seems that it should be smart enough to know that a function defined > in a class has a "self" implicitly added to the parameter list.
Pretty close. This is one of the things that's always puzzled me about the discussion. Making self and cls keyword pseudo-constants that get the current instance and class from the stack frame (or raise an exception) would eliminate them from the method header. It would ALSO eliminate a whole level of indirection in method invocation and get rid of the instancemethod, classmethod and staticmethod wrapper classes. This would be a significant simplification. If it had been done earlier, it would have eliminated most of the justification for method attributes (those silly @ things), thus showing that unneeded complexity breeds more unneeded complexity. John Roth -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
