> First of all, you are using a really poor example of a "method",
> since it doesn't use any attributes of the Foo instance.
Agreed. I tried to post a short example, and it obviously was to short
to make my point clear. lets take a longer one. Current syntax:
class Pair:
def __init__(self, a,b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
def sum(self):
return self.a + self.b
def product (this):
return this.a + this.b
My alternative syntax suggestion would be this one:
class Pair:
def self.__init__(a,b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
def self.sum():
return self.a + self.b
def this.product ():
return this.a + this.b
> You are really giving "self" a magic meaning with your suggestion
> which isn't needed at all.
No. I hope this is clearer in the example above. "self" shouldn't be a
keyword. It's a special kind of argument now, so why shouldn't we
explicitly _declare_ that it's a special kind of argument? (as explicit
is better than implicit)
> So far, the existence of x.y somewhere
> in Python always implied that x was already introduced explicitly
> in the program,
Yes, but y(x) also implies that x and y have been introduced explicitly
before, unless it's in a "def" statement. The def statement always
introduces new variables.
> and you suggest that we violate that both in the
> "def self.x"-row, and inside the methods when we access attributes.
def x(self):
declares two new identifiers, "x" and "self"
Why shouldn't
def self.x():
declare two new identifiers ("x" and "self"), too?
Attribute acces wouldn't change.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
