explicit self revisited

[Michele Simionato]

Re: explicit self revisited

Peter Maas wrote:

The Python FAQ 1.4.5 gives 3 reasons for explicit self (condensed version):
>
1. Instance variables can be easily distinguished from local variables.
>
2. A method from a particular class can be called as
baseclass.metho dname(self, <argument list>).
>
3. No need for declarations to disambiguate assignments to local/instance
variables.
>
All these reasons are valid and retained by the following suggestion: let
self be represented by the dot <snip>

This suggestion has been discussed in the past (I remember having the
same idea
myself when I first learned Python). But at the end I believe the
explicit 'self' is
a better solution, because there are cases where it is useful to have
it (see Steven
d'Aprano's post) and also I like the fact that I can spell it 'cls' in
classmethods and in
metaclasses. After a while one gets used to it and if you think a bit
it makes quite a
lot sense. Also, having the self explicit, makes Python object system
better (i.e.
it goes more in the direction of CLOS and less in the direction of
Java).

Michele Simionato

[Steve Holden]

Re: explicit self revisited

Doug wrote:
[...]

The explicit self is there simply because OOP was tacked onto python as
an afterthought.

No, it was added in such a way that Python would be useful as a
procedural as well as an OO language.

I don't know what's got into me.

can't-normally-say-boo-to-a-goose-ly y'rs - steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

[Hendrik van Rooyen]

Re: explicit self revisited

"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wlfraed@ix.net com.comwrote:

Especially since there is a comefrom <G>

*breaks into song* : "Oh Susannah, now don't you cry for me..."

[fynali]

Re: Fredrik Lundh [was &quot;Re: explicit self revisited&quot;]

You idiot. Putting the word "official" in front of something doesn't

mean it can't be FUD. Especially when it is written by people such as
yourself. Have you not paid attention to anything happening in
politics around the world during your lifetime?

Ridiculous boo-llshit!

[Simon Brunning]

Re: explicit self revisited

On 11/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@python ware.comwrote:

>

I suppose that in his view, language advocacy is a zero-sum game, so
positive comments about Python can be considered as FUD against his own
project. He's even invented his own del.icio.us tag for this purpose:

http://del.icio.us/tag/pythonfud

>
now at:
>

http://del.icio.us/tag/python-fud

>
</F>

Hey, Fredrik, you have your own tag!
<http://del.icio.us/tag/fredrik-lundh-trollI wish *I* had my own
tag. ;-)

I notice that, as you predicted, Python's lack of a goto is in there too.

--
Cheers,
Simon B
simon@brunningo nline.net

http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/

[Christophe]

Re: explicit self revisited

Simon Brunning a écrit :

On 11/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@python ware.comwrote:

>>

I suppose that in his view, language advocacy is a zero-sum game, so
positive comments about Python can be considered as FUD against his own
project. He's even invented his own del.icio.us tag for this purpose:
>
http://del.icio.us/tag/pythonfud

>>
>now at:
>>
> http://del.icio.us/tag/python-fud
>>
></F>

>
Hey, Fredrik, you have your own tag!
<http://del.icio.us/tag/fredrik-lundh-trollI wish *I* had my own
tag. ;-)
>
I notice that, as you predicted, Python's lack of a goto is in there too.

Hey, this is fun :D I also found that one :

http://del.icio.us/dholton/python-fud-by-fredrik-lundh

But is seems they all point to the same article than yours so you get
the points for it ;)

[Peter Maas]

Re: explicit self revisited

Michele Simionato wrote:

Peter Maas wrote:

>All these reasons are valid and retained by the following suggestion: let
>self be represented by the dot <snip>

>
This suggestion has been discussed in the past (I remember having the
same idea myself when I first learned Python). But at the end I believe
the explicit 'self' is a better solution, because there are cases where
it is useful to have it

Thanks, Michele. My intention wasn't to abandon explicit self but to replace
it by a shorter and unique entity. I searched a little for similar suggestions
in the past but didn't find them so I decided to post. I admit that my
suggestion was half-baked.

But at least I learned something: a heated debate isn't bound to become an
endless thread if the OP abstains from answering idiot replies ;)

--
Regards/Gruesse,

Peter Maas, Aachen
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 B1dGlsb2cuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: explicit self revisited

Peter Maas wrote:

But at least I learned something: a heated debate isn't bound to become an
endless thread if the OP abstains from answering idiot replies ;)

trolling is trolling even if you use smilies. I'm sure you can find a
way to actually *contribute* to Python if you really want to...

</F>

[Peter Maas]

Re: explicit self revisited

Steven D'Aprano schrieb:

Implicit self will never be used for Python, because it is redundant so
long as there is a need for explicit self, and there is a need for
explicit self because there are a number of basic, dare I say
*fundamental* programming techniques that require an explicit self.
>
For example, delegation.
>
class MyClass(Parent) :
def method(self, arg):
Parent.method(s elf, arg)
# what are you going to write? Parent.method(, arg) maybe?

The idea is: let self (or self.) be represented by the dot alone,
therefore:

Parent.method(. , arg) # :)

Here's another fundamental technique that implicit self breaks.
>
class MyList(list):
def __iadd__(self, other):
# in-place addition
other = transform(other ) # do something to the argument
super(MyList, self).__iadd__( other) # call the superclass
# could be written .__class__.__ia dd__(other)
# BUT be aware the semantics are NOT the same!
return self # and return the suitably modified instance

return .

You can't explicitly return the instance unless you have an explicit name
for it. (And if you are thinking of creating more magic syntax that
implicitly returns self, just don't bother.)

No magic. Just a dot. But perhaps a dot is too tiny. We could take JUST_ME
or ME_AND_BOBBY_MC GEE instead, of course as a reserved keyword followed by a
dot ;)

Thanks for your hints, Steven.

--
Regards/Gruesse,

Peter Maas, Aachen
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 B1dGlsb2cuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')

[baalbek]

Re: explicit self revisited

Peter Maas wrote:

No magic. Just a dot. But perhaps a dot is too tiny. We could take JUST_ME
or ME_AND_BOBBY_MC GEE instead, of course as a reserved keyword followed
by a
dot ;)

Why a dot, and not a @, like in Ruby and Perl?

I think a dot is a particular bad idea, not the least due to poorer
readability of code (and thou shall not underestimate the readability of
code!).

Baalbek