Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:27:55 -0600 > DH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But I think most people who don't like the extraneous > > 'self' in python just consider it a minor inconvenience > > and don't even notice it after using python for a while. > > After messing around with Javascript (many magical > variables that suddenly show up in your namespaces!), I > began to *seriously* appreciate Python's design. Having > self as an explicit parameter is beautiful self-documenting > design.
I have to agree... Here is my experience with the same idea in C++... I've converted lots of C code written in an object oriented style into C++. In C you pass round a pointer to a struct, which gets transformed into the new class on conversion. Typically the code is then full of this->member = that, etc. This is the python equivalent of self.member = that. At this point I usually remove all the this-> from the code which then causes it to malfunction horribly at run-time (it compiles fine) because of all the name space clashes between the things in the class and the local variables. The compiler doesn't warn about this - its perfectly legal C++. In a lot of big C++ programs various conventions are used to try to help with this - naming all parameters to functions _name rather than name, or using this->member rather than member. The python way of enforcing self.member is much cleaner and never comes back to bite you! -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
