John Roth a écrit : > 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.
I suppose that by header, you mean prototype or signature. But anyway, it's not a *method* signature, it's a *function* signature - and the compiler persists to have nothing to do with all this... > 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), "those silly @ things" has *nothing* to do with methods nor with attributes. It's just syntactic sugar for HOFs. Period. > thus showing that unneeded complexity breeds more unneeded > complexity. John, there are plenty of other OOPls around that don't requires neither explicit use of the instance/class reference nor mention of it in the function . If after having read this whole thread and all relevant documentation, you still don't understand why Python works that way and why most of us are *totally* happy with the way it works, I strongly suggest that you switch to another language. Not that I have nothing personal against you, but it should be quite clear that this part of Python is not going to change - FWIW, as Alex pointed out, I doubt even GvR could impose such a change now. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
