On Dec 5, 6:21 pm, "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. > > I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think? > Anyone ready for writing a PEP? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > -- > Psss, psss, put it down! -http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown
I like it. I'll even go a step further and suggest that "$" be allowed as a substitute for "self". It looks like a capital "S" (for Self), and it stands out clearly. It also makes code more succinct with no loss of readability. Think of the line wraps that could be avoided. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
