At 12:58 PM 4/13/2006 -0700, Michael Chermside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To be abundantly specific, the proposal is that if the next two tokens
>after a "def" were "self" and "." then the result of compiling such
>code would be exactly the same as if they were not present but "self"
>and "," were inserted immediately after the opening parenthesis.
>Whether to allow any identifier or only the particular identifier
>"self" is an interesting question that I would leave for Guido.
>
>Personally, I favor doing this. I think that making declarations look
>similar to invocations is very useful.
You could make them look even closer if it worked like this:
def .aMethod(arg1, arg2):
return .otherMethod(arg1*2+arg2)
In other words, 'self' here is uniformly replaced by an empty string. :)
Interestingly, I believe this syntax could get everybody off our backs
about explicit self, as although it is still explicit, it's in an implicit
way. :)
Of course, for this to really work properly, you would have to be able to
use a bare '.' to mean the hidden argument, for cases like "getattr(.,foo)"
and ".[27]".
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
