Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #91253 > unrolled thread

should "self" be changed?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 09:37 -0700
    Re: should "self" be changed? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-05-26 18:57 +0200
      Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 20:01 -0700
      Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 20:15 -0700
    Re: should "self" be changed? Laurent Pointal <laurent.pointal@free.fr> - 2015-05-26 18:59 +0200
    Re: should "self" be changed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-26 18:28 +0100
      Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 19:48 -0700
        Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 20:17 -0700
          Re: should "self" be changed? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-05-27 14:39 +1000
            Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-27 15:47 +1000
              Re: should "self" be changed? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-05-27 21:29 +1000
                Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 05:40 -0700
                  Re: should "self" be changed? Todd <toddrjen@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 15:00 +0200
                    Re: should "self" be changed? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-27 14:19 +0000
                    Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 16:18 -0700
              Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 16:10 -0700
            Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 16:13 -0700
    Re: should "self" be changed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 03:31 +1000
    Re: should "self" be changed? random832@fastmail.us - 2015-05-26 14:11 -0400
    Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-26 22:46 +0300
      Re: should "self" be changed? Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-05-26 13:04 -0700
        Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-26 23:36 +0300
          Re: should "self" be changed? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-05-28 17:07 +0300
            Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-28 18:01 +0300
              Re: should "self" be changed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-28 09:40 -0600
                Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-28 19:59 +0300
                  Re: should "self" be changed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 03:06 +1000
                  Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 16:39 -0700
              Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-29 12:00 +1000
                Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-29 15:46 +1000
                Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-03 02:50 +1000
                  Re: should "self" be changed? "Dr. BigCock" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 10:16 -0700
                  Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-06-02 20:19 +0300
                    Re: should "self" be changed? "Dr. Bigcock" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 11:02 -0700
                    Re: should "self" be changed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 19:39 -0600
                    Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-03 17:05 +1000
      Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-27 15:20 +1000
    Re: should "self" be changed? garabik-news-2005-05@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk - 2015-05-26 20:26 +0000
      Re: should "self" be changed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-26 21:45 +0100
        Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-27 15:23 +1000
          Re: should "self" be changed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 16:32 +1000
            Re: should "self" be changed? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-27 10:39 +0300
              Re: should "self" be changed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 18:20 +1000
              Re: should "self" be changed? zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 16:15 -0700
          Re: should "self" be changed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-05-27 17:59 -0400
      Re: should "self" be changed? Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 23:17 +0200
      Re: should "self" be changed? Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-05-26 16:10 -0500
    Re: should "self" be changed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-27 15:17 +1000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#91253 — should "self" be changed?

Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?  

Something like:

class MyClass(object):

    def __init__(@):
        @.dummy = None

OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it into a true *operator*.

class MyClass(object):

    def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
        @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary

That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch that couldn't be scratched.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

--mark

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#91254

In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
>Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?  
>
>Something like:
>
>class MyClass(object):
>
>    def __init__(@):
>        @.dummy = None
>
>OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it into a true *operator*.
>
>class MyClass(object):
>
>    def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
>        @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
>
>That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch that couldn't be scratched.
>
>Anyone else have any thoughts?

Guido did.  :)
http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html

Laura

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91275

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
> >Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?  

> >class MyClass(object):
> >
> >    def __init__(@):
> >        @.dummy = None
> >
> >OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it into a true *operator*.
> >
> >class MyClass(object):
> >
> >    def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
> >        @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
> >
> >That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch that couldn't be scratched.
>
> Guido did.  :)
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html

Sweet link.  I see now that my confusion surrounds the mistaken notion that Python is lexing python source into *abstract syntax trees* (wikipedia describes nicely), so that code inside a method knows what class it's in.

But GvR hasn't defined his language to the extent where the notion of "object" even exists.  He's only set aside a keyword called "class".  So of course he has to treat the method code, practically, like a [C] function.  But that limits the language, not to define what an object is inside the lexical structure:

object ::= "class" identifier "(" inheritence_list ")" ":"
inheritence_list ::= [[et cetera]]

If he did this, then code inside the class could already know what class they're in and all the objections in Laura's link would be moot.

Mark J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91276

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
> >Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?  
> >
> >Something like:
> >
> >class MyClass(object):
> >
> >    def __init__(@):
> >        @.dummy = None
> >
> >OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it into a true *operator*.
> >
> >class MyClass(object):
> >
> >    def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
> >        @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
> >
> >That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch that couldn't be scratched.
> >
> >Anyone else have any thoughts?
> 
> Guido did.  :)
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html

Nice link, thanks.

I see the problem.  I was under the false impression that Python's lexer built an *abstract syntax tree* (see wikipedia for a nice description) like C does so that lexical items like functions and objects are defined.  As it stands now, Python doesn't even seem to know what an *expression* is.

Guido hasn't defined his language so that an object is defined lexically, so he's cheating a little by requiring "self" to be passed in.  If Python were to be defined more completely, all his points in reference to Bruce Eckel's suggestion would be moot.  A method would automatically (not auto*magically*) know what class they are in.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91255

zipher wrote:

> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> rather than a name?
> 
> Something like:
> 
> class MyClass(object):
> 
>     def __init__(@):
>         @.dummy = None

Just seeing the Python3.5 announce with @ used as matrix multiplication 
operator ;-)

> OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops
> confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform
> it into a true *operator*.

Self is not an operator, its the target object as first parameter. And with 
Python you can call some methods directly using theclass.themethod(objet, 
param1, param2).

> class MyClass(object):
> 
>     def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
>         @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
> 
> That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't
> become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self"
> was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an
> itch that couldn't be scratched.

«Explicit is better than implicit»

I think that googling for that idea you will find other people already 
proposing it (I've seen propositions to directly remove part before the dot 
like this: .dummy = None). Just read it.

> Anyone else have any thoughts?

IMHO Zero chance that it be adopted.

A+
Laurent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91257

On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?
>
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
>      def __init__(@):
>          @.dummy = None
>
> OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it into a true *operator*.
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
>      def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
>          @.dummy = None  #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
>
> That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really.  It doesn't become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch that couldn't be scratched.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts?
>
> --mark
>

Yes, how about you taking a permanent holiday rather than bother this 
list with more of your nonsense?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91274

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 12:28:31 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
> > Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?
> 
> Yes, how about you taking a permanent holiday rather than bother this 
> list with more of your nonsense?
> 
> Mark Lawrence

Mr. Lawrence, could you calm down with your sadism on the list.  Our session last time ended with a lot of semen on your floor instead of in your mouth.

Your bosom buddy,

Mark Janssen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91277

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 9:48:25 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 12:28:31 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> > On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
> > > Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?
> > 
> > Yes, how about you taking a permanent holiday rather than bother this 
> > list with more of your nonsense?
> > 
> > Mark Lawrence
> 
> Mr. Lawrence, could you calm down with your sadism on the list.  Our session last time ended with a lot of semen on your floor instead of in your mouth.
> 
> Your bosom buddy,
> 
> Mark Janssen

Arrgh.  Sorry, that was meant privately...

-m

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91278

zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:

> Arrgh.  Sorry, that was meant privately...

I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
treat people.

That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
community. Kindly cut it out altogether.

-- 
 \       “Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish |
  `\                                            the rest.” —Mark Twain |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91283

On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:

> zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Arrgh.  Sorry, that was meant privately...
> 
> I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> treat people.
> 
> That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> community. Kindly cut it out altogether.

I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult and be 
perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as "your mother 
wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken seriously.

So long as it does nobody any harm, and all participants have consented, 
what one adult chooses to take into their mouth is nobody else's business 
and certainly no reason to look down on them.



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91295

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
>
> I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult
> and be perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as
> "your mother wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken
> seriously.

Yes, let's all work toward an end to the use of gender, sexuality,
ethnicity, and other inborn traits as the punchline of insults or jokes.

Until that happy day, let's work to improve the lot of those who are
made the butt of such slurs. Part of that work must be to call foul when
someone invokes an entire class of people as an insult.

-- 
 \         “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
  `\        Brain, but why would anyone want to see Snow White and the |
_o__)                           Seven Samurai?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91302

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> 
> > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
> >
> > I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult
> > and be perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as
> > "your mother wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken
> > seriously.
> 
> Yes, let's all work toward an end to the use of gender, sexuality,
> ethnicity, and other inborn traits as the punchline of insults or jokes.

Oh God, you people are being idiots.  It's poop. And shall we all so look forward to the day, when people who eat poop are also welcome into the circle of humanity? 

Everyday, you let atrocity happen, and you're fighting for oppressed feltchers?

If so, you dumbasses don't deserve much of a future.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91306

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> >
> > > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> > >
> > > > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > > > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
> > >
> > > I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult
> > > and be perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as
> > > "your mother wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken
> > > seriously.
> >
> > Yes, let's all work toward an end to the use of gender, sexuality,
> > ethnicity, and other inborn traits as the punchline of insults or jokes.
>
> Oh God, you people are being idiots.  It's poop. And shall we all so look
> forward to the day, when people who eat poop are also welcome into the
> circle of humanity?
>
> Everyday, you let atrocity happen, and you're fighting for oppressed
> feltchers?
>
> If so, you dumbasses don't deserve much of a future.
>

If your goal is to get people to stop calling you a troll, you are going
about it the wrong way.  If it isn't, why are you even here?  Please
remember the first rule of holes: if you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91312

On 2015-05-27, Todd <toddrjen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [some stupid crap]
>
> If your goal is to get people to stop calling you a troll, you are
> going about it the wrong way.  If it isn't, why are you even here?
> Please remember the first rule of holes: if you find yourself in a
> hole, stop digging.

And thanks to everybody who keeps replying to zipher's posts so that
those of use who's newsreaders are configured to filter him out get to
see them anyway.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I need to discuss
                                  at               BUY-BACK PROVISIONS
                              gmail.com            with at least six studio
                                                   SLEAZEBALLS!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91552

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> writes:
> 
> >
> 
> > > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> 
> > > > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult
> 
> > > and be perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as
> 
> > > "your mother wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken
> 
> > > seriously.
> 
> >
> 
> > Yes, let's all work toward an end to the use of gender, sexuality,
> 
> > ethnicity, and other inborn traits as the punchline of insults or jokes.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh God, you people are being idiots.  It's poop. And shall we all so look forward to the day, when people who eat poop are also welcome into the circle of humanity?
>
> If your goal is to get people to stop calling you a troll, you are going about it the wrong way.  If it isn't, why are you even here?  Please remember the first rule of holes: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Dude, I stopped digging into "holes" a long time ago, but then that was the issue wasn't it?  And since my goal isn't that, let's go back to discussing the ins and outs (ahem) of creating a more complete lexical specification of the language, which would provide many other worthy side benefits, besides saving on typing characters.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91549

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 12:48:02 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> Arrgh.  Sorry, that was meant privately...
> > 
> > I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> > treat people.
> > 
> > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
> 
> I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult and be 
> perplexed as to why it is a slur at all. In the same way as "your mother 
> wears army boots" has become a joke slur, not taken seriously.

Yes, and I look forward to the day when you *bend over* freely to take it all in without complaint.  When such offerings are natural and aren't seen as an insult at all.  

You first.

Mark 

> So long as it does nobody any harm, and all participants have consented, 
> what one adult chooses to take into their mouth is nobody else's business 
> and certainly no reason to look down on them.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91550

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Arrgh.  Sorry, that was meant privately...
> 
> I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> treat people.

Ben, he asked for it.  Stop assuming.

> That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> community. Kindly cut it out altogether.

Ben that is so presumtuous of you!  He and my acts were completely homo positive.  I assure you.

Perhaps you are hiding something?

Mark
P.S. You can respond privately.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91258

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, how about you taking a permanent holiday rather than bother this list
> with more of your nonsense?

No need to be nasty about it. The suggestion is a plausible one, it
just happens to not fit Python's philosophy. The best response is to
quote Guido's statement on the subject... which is exactly what Laura
already did. :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91259

On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 12:57, Laura Creighton wrote:
> Guido did.  :)
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html

It's worth noting that the "dynamically modify a class" argument (and to
some extent the decorator argument) misses Javascript's solution - _any_
function may refer to "this" (which is not in the argument list), which
will be the global scope object (the browser window for browser-hosted
javascript - presumably the current module for a hypothetical equivalent
python feature, though it might be more prudent to simply make it None.)
if the function is called without an object reference. Of course,
Javascript also lacks bound methods, which makes it much more likely to
happen by accident.

I can't really think of anything that you can do with decorators,
either, in the current model, that you _couldn't_ do in a JS-alike
function call model... but I doubt it would be possible to implement
backwards-compatibly.

In principle, if you added a class keyword (hey, technically, isn't
there one already?) you wouldn't need decorators at all for the
staticmethod/classmethod/instance method case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91260

zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com>:

> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun
> unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing
> it into a symbol rather than a name?
>
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
>     def __init__(@):
>         @.dummy = None
>
> OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it
> stops confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and
> transform it into a true *operator*.

Python's practice works. However, a small problem is presented by nested
classes:

    class Connection:
        def __init__(self):
            class Idle:
                def signal_start(self):
                    # how to refer to the outer self
                    :
            :

Solutions include:

    class Connection:
        def __init__(self):
            class Idle:
                def signal_start(_):
                    self.set_state(Ready)
            :


    class Connection:
        def __init__(self):
            conn = self
            class Idle:
                def signal_start(self):
                    conn.set_state(Ready)
            :


I have used the latter method recently.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web