On 25 Jul, 22:37, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kay Schluehr wrote: > > > > This isn't the problem Jordan tries to address. It's really just about > > `self` in the argument signature of f, not about its omission in the > > body. > > That is not at all how I read him, so I will let him respond if he > wishes. The main problem moving a function from module scope to class > scope is prefixing the proper variables. Adding a param name, whether > 'self', 's', 'this', or whatever, is trivial and hardly worth the ink.
He wrote the following of relevance: "I added some classes to code that had previously just been functions, and you know what I did - or rather, forgot to do? Put in the 'self'. In front of some of the variable accesses, but more noticably, at the start of *every single method argument list.*" And rounding off with this on the subject: "The problem is that the explicit requirement to have self at the start of every method is something that should be shipped off to the implicit category." I guess the desire is to have Java-like behaviour: when defining a method, which must typically be done in the class definition in Java (unless they've enhanced that area in the past few years), you never write a "this" parameter in the method signature, but you are free to qualify instance attribute accesses with "this". Personally, I liked the Modula-3-inspired requirement for "self" in Python, but I can see how a reminder of what it is in every method signature (defined within a class) might be regarded as overly explicit. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
