On Dec 6, 9:12 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 1:02 am, Antoine De Groote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Allowing "$" as a substitute for "self" wouldn't require this new syntax. > > > class C: > > def method($, arg): > > $.value = arg > > > I'm strongly against this. This looks ugly and reminds me of Perl and > > Ruby. (I don't have anything against these languages, but there's a > > reason I use Python). > > > Russ P. wrote: > > > 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. > > It looks "ugly" simply because it is new to you. Once you get used to > it, I'll bet it will look fine. And resemblance to another language is > not a very good reason to reject it.
Perl is not new to me and I am familiar with the syntax, such as it is. I find it unspeakably ugly. So, no, you would lose your bet if it were me. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
