On 26 Jul, 06:06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > > "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."
Here, I presume that the author meant "at the start of every method signature". > There is no requirement to have 'self' in the parameter list. It can be > 's', 'this', 'me', 'yo'(Spanish for I), or 'cls' (for class methods), or > any other identifier in whatever language. But Jordan apparently wanted to omit that parameter. The omission of all mentions of "self" could be regarded as a bonus, but it's a non- trivial goal. > In 3.0, identifiers are not restricted to ascii but can be any unicode > 'word' as defined in the manual. > > So the proposal would have to be that the compiler scan the function > body and decide which dotted name prefix is the one to be implicitly > added. Have fun writing the discovery algorithm. However, I think this > is pretty silly. Just write the name you want. If, as I wrote, you permit the omission of "self" in method signatures defined within class definitions, then you could still insist on instance attribute qualification using "self" - exactly as one would when writing Java according to certain style guidelines. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
