Edward Elliott a écrit : > bruno at modulix wrote: > >>Technically, they are still function objects. They are later wrapped >>into method descriptor objects (at lookup time IIRC, but ask a guru or >>read the doc to know for sure). And don't forget the case of nested >>functions... > > > I don't see how nested functions change anything. If they're nested in a > method, they can access self, but the name mapping is done at runtime. > Unless you mean a nested fucntion which is dynamically added as a method, > but that's the same case as the next one. >
Nope. I just wanted to point out that just checking for def statements in the scope of a class statement is not enough to decide if it has to be treated as a method. (snip) > >>>Well I'm assuming the rules for when to put 'self' in the parameter list >>>are simple enough to be automated. >> >>They are still complex enough to require a real parser. And anyway, >>since this is a syntax change, this should be handled by the parser IMHO. > > I agree, but it's good to keep options in mind. regexp are not an option !-) > >>Honestly, I don't think it has much chance. I barely even notice typing >>'self' or 'cls', and I guess it's the same for most Python programmers >>- those who can't stand it probably use another language... And FWIW, I >>still prefer to keep consistency in functions definitions. > > I have no doubt that's true for a lot of people. Hell I probably prefer the > current approach because 1) it's not a big deal in practice, and 2) I can > use the shorter 'me' or 's' in place of self in my own code, which I > couldn't do under the change Now *this* would be a +1 !-) > (well, I could add 'me = self' as the first > statement of any method, but that's clumsy). My objections stem more from > an elegance standpoint. Of course elegance is in the eye of the beholder. Indeed... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
