The issue of explicitly naming a "self" parameter has been discussed in depth on a number of occasions. I recommend a google search for "python implicit self" for some of the reasons why it exists. Here's what Guido has to say about it:
http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html Cheers, Cliff On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 13:15 +0000, Andrea Crotti wrote: > On 03/22/2012 10:51 AM, Steven Lehar wrote: > > It seems to me that the Python class system is needlessly confusing. > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > For example in the class Complex given in the documentation > > > > > > class Complex: > > def __init__(self, realpart, imagpart): > > self.r = realpart > > self.i = imagpart > > > > > > x = Complex(3.0, -4.5) > > > > > > I initially found it profoundly confusing that __init__( ) calls for > > 3 arguments, but you call Complex( ) with 2. Furthermore, why not > > call the initialization function after the class name as is done in > > other languages? Isn't that the simplest conceptually? Demonstrating > > with the above example: > > > > > > class Complex: > > def Complex(realpart, imagpart): > > Complex.r = realpart > > Complex.i = imagpart > > > > > > x = Complex(3.0, -4.5) > > > > > > Is there a good reason why classes cannot be defined that way? > > (Besides the problem of backward-compatibility) > > > > > > Some time ago I saw some nasty hack that allowed you to drop the self > in the method declaration, > using some crazy metaclass trick, but that's really not a good idea ;) > > I agree that is counter-intuitive but just set your editor to do that > for you and you will be fine.. > > in my emacs > - s TAB -> self > - . TAB -> self. > - m TAB -> def ${1:method}(self$2): > $0 > > so I never actually write the self.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
