Erik Jones a écrit : > On Sep 14, 2007, at 11:54 PM, David Trudgett wrote: > >> TheFlyingDutchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> (snip) >> >> Several languages use the "object.method(args)" form, which is syntactic >> sugar for "method(object, other_args)" which Ada, for instance, uses. >> Knowing this clears up half the confusion (the object /is/ passed as a >> parameter whichever syntax is used). >> >> The other half of the confusion is cleared up by considering that >> Python methods are ordinary functions that don't magically "know" in >> which "class" context they are executing: they must be told via the >> first parameter. > > > Yes, that is really the crux of the issue, though. While the former > may be syntactic sugar for the latter, once any syntactic sugar has > become prevalent enough, it becomes the expected norm
Being "the expected norm" is not enough to qualify has "being the right thing to do". > and the latter > becomes clutter or, at best, awkward. Until you want to dynamically add some generic function taking an object as first arg as a method of a class or instance. Exposing most of the inner working of it's object model is one of the greatest strength of Python. And that's one of the reasons I (and probably other people here) like this language. > It's something that really just > takes a little use until you get to the point where you don't usually > think of it but, every so often, the thought creeps in. I'm not > complaining, just pointing out if you step out of this particular box, > you'll realize that it really is a pointless one. Saying, "because > that's how Python does it" may be the only valid reason, but that > argument is about on par with a six year old's "just because...". If you really think the only rationale for this is "just because", then you're missing something IMHO. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
