On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 5:34:30 PM UTC+5:30, Pete Forman wrote: > Rustom Mody writes: > > > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:58:19 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:13 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote: > >> > >> > To me, it's a toss-up. The chained version is nice in that it > >> > removes the repetition of "g". But the unchained version is more > >> > explicit, and avoids the awkward parenthesis. > >> > > >> > I think I would lean toward the unchained version. Clearly tastes > >> > can differ. > >> > >> Indeed. For what it's worth, I'm ever-so-slightly leaning towards > >> Lawrence's taste here. > > > > More than 'slightly' out here! > > One thing about python OOP that irritates me is the 'self.' clutter. > > With a Pascal/VB style with-statement its naturally taken care of > > > > Yeah I know there is this FAQ: > > https://docs.python.org/2/faq/design.html#why-doesn-t-python-have-a-with-statement-for-attribute-assignments > > > > I consider it bogus if we allow with to mean something like: > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wc500chb.aspx > > One subtle difference between your two citations is that VB uses a > leading dot. Might that lessening of ambiguity enable a future Python to > allow this? > > class Foo: > def .set(a): # equivalent to def set(self, a): > .a = a # equivalent to self.a = a >
Chuckle! Heck Why not?! But no I did not think of this > Unless it is in a with statement > > with obj: > .a = 1 # equivalent to obj.a = 1 > .total = .total + 1 # obj.total = obj.total + 1 I intended only this much viz that the syntactic marker '.' disambiguates between ordinary variable and attribute As for what happens when there are nested references as mentioned by Waffle: Well these ambiguities have a venerable vintage in programming languages Starting from the dangling else to which declaration a variable refers to when there are nested scopes and much else ie "match-to-the-innermost" seems to be obvious enough -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
