Joonas Liik <liik.joo...@gmail.com> writes: > On 18 June 2016 at 15:04, Pete Forman <petef4+use...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> 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 >> >> Unless it is in a with statement >> >> with obj: >> .a = 1 # equivalent to obj.a = 1 >> .total = .total + 1 # obj.total = obj.total + 1 >> >> -- >> Pete Forman >> -- >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > the leading dot does not resolve the ambiguity that arises from: > > with ob_a: > with ob_b: > .attr_c = 42 # which object are we modifying right now? > > also refer to "javascript the bad parts" about all the edege cases > that python would surely face. > also with is allready used for context managers..
Yes, I ought not to have lumped in the with proposal with that for self. Python's design FAQ clearly explains why the language does not need that form of "with". -- Pete Forman -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
