On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 12:57, Laura Creighton wrote: > Guido did. :) > http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html
It's worth noting that the "dynamically modify a class" argument (and to some extent the decorator argument) misses Javascript's solution - _any_ function may refer to "this" (which is not in the argument list), which will be the global scope object (the browser window for browser-hosted javascript - presumably the current module for a hypothetical equivalent python feature, though it might be more prudent to simply make it None.) if the function is called without an object reference. Of course, Javascript also lacks bound methods, which makes it much more likely to happen by accident. I can't really think of anything that you can do with decorators, either, in the current model, that you _couldn't_ do in a JS-alike function call model... but I doubt it would be possible to implement backwards-compatibly. In principle, if you added a class keyword (hey, technically, isn't there one already?) you wouldn't need decorators at all for the staticmethod/classmethod/instance method case. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
