On Jul 28, 2:52 am, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 28, 3:07 pm, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What was "suggested in rejected" on the thread you pointed me to was > > not what I suggested. Not even close. Get it, genius? > > *sigh* Clearly I don't have better things to do right now than waste > my time. > > You wrote: > > So why not allow something like this?: > > class MyClass: > > def func( , xxx, yyy): > > .xxx = xxx > > local = .yyy > > The "self" argument is replaced with nothing, but a comma is used as a > > placeholder. > > Philip Eby suggested in the thread I linked to: > > > def .aMethod(arg1, arg2): > > return .otherMethod(arg1*2+arg2) > > In other words, 'self' here is uniformly replaced by an empty string. > > So you honestly see no similarity between your suggestion and the > latter? > > Or do you seriously think that placing an errant comma in the argument > list is somehow substantively different from placing a period before > the function name?
Yes, in terms of Python syntax, it's completely different. Forget the empty first argument. As I explained in other posts on this thread, it is not even needed for my proposal. It was just a distraction from the main idea. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
