>> Hi folks, >> >> The story of the explicit self in method definitions has been >> discussed to death and we all know it will stay. However, Guido >> himself acknowledged that an alternative syntax makes perfect sense >> and having both (old and new) in a future version of python is a >> possibility since it maintains backward compatibility. The alternative >> syntax will be syntactic sugar for the old one. This blog post of his >> is what I'm talking about: >> >> http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html >> >> The proposal is to allow this: >> >> class C: >> def self.method( arg ): >> self.value = arg >> return self.value >> >> instead of this: >> >> class C: >> def method( self, arg ): >> self.value = arg >> return self.value >> > (snip) >> I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think? > > -1 > > As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't add anything to the language, nor > doesn't save any typing, so I just don't see the point. And having it > co-existing with the normal syntax will only add more confusion.
It doesn't add anything but makes something that exists a bit clearer and friendlier to newbies. Saving typing was never the intention. > NB : FWIW, I would eventually have voted -0 if it had been proposed for > Python 3, and as a _replacement_ (not _alternative_) to the current > syntax. But Python 3 is now released, so... There will be python 4000 eventually :) -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
