Well after reading some of these posts on "sacred python cow" on the
"self" , i would generally feel that most programmers
who started with C++/Java would find it odd. And its true, i agree
completely there should not be a need to put "self" into every single
member function. If you were writing an application and one of your
classes adds the same variable to each of its member function you would
do away with it too.
What could be done instead is :-
1. python should hardcode the keyword "self". So whenever this keyword
is used, it would automatically implied that it is
referring to a class scope variable. This would be similar to how the
"this" keyword is used in C++.
2. Omit self from the parameter.
class Abc :
def DoSomething (a,b,c) :
# class variable
self.somevar = a
self.someblar = b
self.somec = c
somevar = a * b # local variable
Russ P. wrote:
On Jul 26, 2:25 pm, Terry Reedy
There is a lot of code you have not seen. Really. In informal code I
use 's' and 'o' for 'self' and 'other'. I don't usually post such
because it is not considered polite. So you have seen a biased sample
of the universe.
You take the name down to a single letter. As I suggested in an
earlier post on this thread, why not take it down to zero letters? You
could if Python accepted something like
class Whatever:
def fun( , cat):
.cat = cat
This is even better than the single-character name, not only because
it is shorter, but also because there is no question that you are
referring to "self." No need to look back at the method signature to
verify that.
For those who don't like the way the empty first argument looks, maybe
something like this could be allowed:
def fun( ., cat):
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
