Peter Maas wrote:
> No magic. Just a dot. But perhaps a dot is too tiny. We could take JUST_ME
> or ME_AND_BOBBY_MCGEE instead, of course as a reserved keyword followed
> by a
> dot ;)
Why a dot, and not a @, like in Ruby and Perl?
I think a dot is a particular bad idea, not the least due to po
Steven D'Aprano schrieb:
> Implicit self will never be used for Python, because it is redundant so
> long as there is a need for explicit self, and there is a need for
> explicit self because there are a number of basic, dare I say
> *fundamental* programming techniques that require an explicit sel
Peter Maas wrote:
> But at least I learned something: a heated debate isn't bound to become an
> endless thread if the OP abstains from answering idiot replies ;)
trolling is trolling even if you use smilies. I'm sure you can find a
way to actually *contribute* to Python if you really want to..
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Peter Maas wrote:
>> All these reasons are valid and retained by the following suggestion: let
>> self be represented by the dot
>
> This suggestion has been discussed in the past (I remember having the
> same idea myself when I first learned Python). But at the end I b
Simon Brunning a écrit :
> On 11/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I suppose that in his view, language advocacy is a zero-sum game, so
>> > positive comments about Python can be considered as FUD against his own
>> > project. He's even invented his own del.icio.us tag for th
On 11/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I suppose that in his view, language advocacy is a zero-sum game, so
> > positive comments about Python can be considered as FUD against his own
> > project. He's even invented his own del.icio.us tag for this purpose:
> >
> > http:/
> You idiot. Putting the word "official" in front of something doesn't
> mean it can't be FUD. Especially when it is written by people such as
> yourself. Have you not paid attention to anything happening in
> politics around the world during your lifetime?
Ridiculous boo-llshit!
--
http://ma
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Especially since there is a comefrom
*breaks into song* : "Oh Susannah, now don't you cry for me..."
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Doug wrote:
[...]
> The explicit self is there simply because OOP was tacked onto python as
> an afterthought.
No, it was added in such a way that Python would be useful as a
procedural as well as an OO language.
I don't know what's got into me.
can't-normally-say-boo-to-a-goose-ly y'rs - stev
Peter Maas wrote:
> The Python FAQ 1.4.5 gives 3 reasons for explicit self (condensed version):
>
> 1. Instance variables can be easily distinguished from local variables.
>
> 2. A method from a particular class can be called as
>baseclass.methodname(self, ).
>
> 3. No need for declarations to
> I suppose that in his view, language advocacy is a zero-sum game, so
> positive comments about Python can be considered as FUD against his own
> project. He's even invented his own del.icio.us tag for this purpose:
>
> http://del.icio.us/tag/pythonfud
now at:
http://del.icio.us/t
Carsten Haese wrote:
> According to that definition, FUD is "a sales or marketing strategy of
> disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's
> product."
Doug "cheddar cheese" Holton (who has a long history of posting
seriously confused and/or abusive stuff under a number of a
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 23:14 -0800, Doug wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >>
> >> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >>> > cannot all you clueless trolls who cannot think of a single useful thing
> >>> > to contribute to Python start your own newsgroup?
> >>
> >>> and b
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:14:32 -0500, Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to link to
> a definition of FUD to show I really meant to use that term.
Oooh.
If you had just mentioned your dyslogia,
it would have saved us all some time.
Thanks!
Alan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:55:35 +0100, Fredrik Lundh
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>
>>
>> ah, good point. I've updated the FAQ.
>>
> Ah, but do we dare update the Wikipedia link to include Python as a
> lan
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>>
>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>> > cannot all you clueless trolls who cannot think of a single useful thing
>>> > to contribute to Python start your own newsgroup?
>>
>>> and before anyone complains; please note that they're working through
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:39:37 +0100, Peter Maas wrote:
[snip]
> let self be represented by the dot, e.g. replace
>
> class someTest(unittest.TestCase):
> def setUp(self):
> self.ly = yList()
> self.m1 = self.ly[0].message
> self.m2 = self.ly[1].message
> self.m3
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> one article at a time. who's going to be the first one to argue that
>> Python needs a goto statement ?
>>
> Especially since there is a comefrom
ah, good point. I've updated the FAQ.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:09:59 -0600, skip wrote:
>
> Doug> The explicit self is there simply because OOP was tacked onto
> Doug> python as an afterthought.
>
> Got a reference to support that claim?
Of course not, since it is a classic example of trolling.
By comparison, the way I read
Doug> The explicit self is there simply because OOP was tacked onto
Doug> python as an afterthought.
Got a reference to support that claim?
Skip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Doug (Holton?) wrote:
>> and before anyone complains; please note that they're working through
>>
>> http://www.effbot.org/pyfaq/design-index.htm
>
> That site is a bunch of FUD -
the official FAQ is a bunch of FUD? are you sure you know what FUD means?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > cannot all you clueless trolls who cannot think of a single useful thing
> > to contribute to Python start your own newsgroup?
>
> and before anyone complains; please note that they're working through
>
> http://www.effbot.org/pyfaq/design-index
> cannot all you clueless trolls who cannot think of a single useful thing
> to contribute to Python start your own newsgroup?
and before anyone complains; please note that they're working through
http://www.effbot.org/pyfaq/design-index.htm
one article at a time. who's going to be the f
Peter Maas wrote:
> What do you think?
cannot all you clueless trolls who cannot think of a single useful thing
to contribute to Python start your own newsgroup?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The Python FAQ 1.4.5 gives 3 reasons for explicit self (condensed version):
1. Instance variables can be easily distinguished from local variables.
2. A method from a particular class can be called as
baseclass.methodname(self, ).
3. No need for declarations to disambiguate assignments to loc
25 matches
Mail list logo
