On 6 Dez., 03:21, "Daniel Fetchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > The story of the explicit self in method definitions has been > discussed to death and we all know it will stay. However, Guido > himself acknowledged that an alternative syntax makes perfect sense > and having both (old and new) in a future version of python is a > possibility since it maintains backward compatibility. The alternative > syntax will be syntactic sugar for the old one. This blog post of his > is what I'm talking about: > > http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay... > > The proposal is to allow this: > > class C: > def self.method( arg ): > self.value = arg > return self.value > > instead of this: > > class C: > def method( self, arg ): > self.value = arg > return self.value > > I.e. explicit self stays only the syntax is slightly different and may > seem attractive to some. As pointed out by Guido classmethods would > work similarly: > > class C: > @classmethod > def cls.method( arg ): > cls.val = arg > return cls.val > > The fact that Guido says, > > "Now, I'm not saying that I like this better than the status quo. But > I like it a lot better than [...] but it has the great advantage that > it is backward compatible, and can be evolved into a PEP with a > reference implementation without too much effort." > > shows that the proposal is viable.
So both forms are dual to each other ( "backwards compatibility" ) and can be used both? I'm -0 on this although I think the proposition fits better with the method call syntax. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
