Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread John Salerno
Duncan Booth wrote: > John Salerno wrote: > >>> The two calls are equivalent. >> can you also say instance.mymethod(instance, 1, 2) ? > > Only if mymethod is defined to take all 4 arguments you just passed to it. Got it. I understand how it works now. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread Duncan Booth
John Salerno wrote: >> The two calls are equivalent. > > can you also say instance.mymethod(instance, 1, 2) ? Only if mymethod is defined to take all 4 arguments you just passed to it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread Douglas Alan
Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> However, there is a slightly less onerous method which >> is perfectly legit in present Python -- just use "s" >> for "self": > This is being different for the sake of being different. Everybody *knows* > what

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread John Salerno
Grant Edwards wrote: > But it _is_ always passed to the function. You can even pass > it explicity when you call the method if you want: I meant it isn't always explicitly passed. > > #!/usr/bin/python > > class MyClass: > def mymethod(self,p1,p2): > print self,p1,p2 >

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2006-03-01, John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do get it. I think I will just have to get used to seeing > the 'self' argument but understanding that it's not really > something that is always passed in. But it _is_ always passed to the function. You can even pass it explicity when y

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread Roy Smith
John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I do get it. I think I will just have to get used to seeing the 'self' >argument but understanding that it's not really something that is always >passed in. I'm trying to train myself to see > >def doittoit(self) as def doittoit() That's OK as far as usi

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-03-01 Thread John Salerno
James Stroud wrote: > py> def doittoit(it): > ... print it.whatzit > ... > py> class It: > ... whatzit = 42 > ... def doittoit(self): > ... print self.whatzit > ... > py> anit = It() > py> doittoit(anit) > 42 > py> It.doittoit(anit) > 42 > py> anit.doittoit() > 42 > > > If you get this

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread James Stroud
John Salerno wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > >>> A related thing I was wondering about was the use of 'self' in >>> class methods as the first parameter. >> >> >> It's not a related thing, it's the same thing. > > > Oh sorry. I thought the OP was asking about having to use self when > qualifyin

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread John Salerno
Grant Edwards wrote: >> A related thing I was wondering about was the use of 'self' in >> class methods as the first parameter. > > It's not a related thing, it's the same thing. Oh sorry. I thought the OP was asking about having to use self when qualifying attributes, or even if he was, I didn

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2006-03-01, John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes. To death. Executive summary: self is here to stay. > > A related thing I was wondering about was the use of 'self' in > class methods as the first parameter. It's not a related thing, it's the same thing. > I understand that right

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread John Salerno
Roy Smith wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Any comments? Has this been discussed before? > > Yes. To death. Executive summary: self is here to stay. A related thing I was wondering about was the use of 'self' in class methods as the first parameter. I understand that right now it is nece

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread Roy Smith
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, there is a slightly less onerous method which > is perfectly legit in present Python -- just use "s" > for "self": This is being different for the sake of being different. Everybody *knows* what self means. If you write your code with s instea

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread Terry Hancock
On 28 Feb 2006 15:54:06 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The issue I have with self. is that is makes the code > larger and more complicated than it needs to be. > Especially in math expressions like: self.position[0] = > self.startx + len(self.bitlist) * self.bitwidth > > It really makes the cod

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread Roy Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Any comments? Has this been discussed before? Yes. To death. Executive summary: self is here to stay. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread paullanier
Thanks. I thought for sure it must have been discussed before but for whatever reason, my googling skills couldn't locate it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread Peter Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It seems that lots of people don't like having to prefix self. in front ... > But what if we keep the '.' and leave out the self. ... > Any comments? Has this been discussed before? Yes, at least once (found by group-googling for "removing self" in this newsgroup):

Use empty string for self

2006-02-28 Thread paullanier
It seems that lots of people don't like having to prefix self. in front of instance variables when writing methods in Python. Of course, whenever someone suggests doing away with 'self' many people point to the scoping advantages that self brings. But I hadn't seen this proposal when I searched s