On 3 Feb 2006 08:58:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ...
>> Unfortunately, none of this suggests that it's reasonable to have
>>
>> def x.y(z): ...
>>
>> mean the same as
>>
>> def y(x, z): ...
>
>Actually, it shouldn't. The idea was, that
> def x.y(z): ...
>(explicitly) introduces an unbound method. That's not introducing a new
>conect to python, it's just making the difference between an unbound
>method and a not-bindable function explicit.
>
>Currently, "def(x,y): ..." can mean two different things: In the
>context of a class, it introduces an unbound method, in global or local
>contexts it introduces a function. I don't want to have a new syntax
>for that, I want two different syntaxes for these two different
>meanings.
>
Are you sure you actually understand what's going on?
Python 2.4.2 (#2, Sep 30 2005, 21:19:01)
[GCC 4.0.2 20050808 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.0.1-4ubuntu8)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def foo(): pass
...
>>> print type(foo)
<type 'function'>
>>> class bar:
... def foo(self): pass
... print type(foo)
...
<type 'function'>
>>> print type(bar.foo)
<type 'instancemethod'>
Jean-Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
