*Thank you all...* *for your previous time. :) * On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Alan Gauld <alan.ga...@btinternet.com>wrote:
> On 11/12/11 03:23, Lie Ryan wrote: > > If returning 'self' is the default expected behavior, it would cause >> inconsistencies with respect to immutable types. For example, `5 >> .__add__(2)`, one could expect it to return 5 instead of 7. >> > > That's not a case where default behaviour would be invoked. > I'm talking about where None is currently returned. Returning None in the > above case would make arithmetic impossible. > > In "modifying" immutables you have to return the modified value, that > wouldn't change. And the same applies in Smalltalk, you only return self as > a default value in those situations where there is no specific return value > required (as Steve put it, for a "procedure like" function). > > It just makes those procedure like functions more usable IMHO. > > > While I liked the attraction of "fluent interface" of being able to >> easily chain function calls, it is inherently more inconsistent than >> what Python are doing. >> > > I disagree. > > However there are so many Smalltalk like features in Python that I'm sure > Guido was well aware of returning self as an option and he obviously > deliberately chose not to. So he presumably felt the gains were outweighed > by the negatives. > > > -- > Alan G > Author of the Learn to Program web site > http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ > > ______________________________**_________________ > Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/tutor<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor> >
_______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
