Hello,
i know this has been discusses very much, i'm sorry,
but i can't help it. In a nutshell, the proposal is as
follows:
1. Self remains explicit (like it is now).
2. if a class is a subclass of a special class, e.g.
named 'selfless', the self parameter is not required
and a special
On 27 agu 2008 at 08:46:15, Kilian Klimek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
i know this has been discusses very much, i'm sorry,
but i can't help it. In a nutshell, the proposal is as
follows:
1. Self remains explicit (like it is now).
2. if a class is a subclass of a special class, e.g.
Kilian Klimek wrote:
Hello,
i know this has been discusses very much, i'm sorry,
but i can't help it. In a nutshell, the proposal is as
follows:
1. Self remains explicit (like it is now).
2. if a class is a subclass of a special class, e.g.
named 'selfless', the self parameter is not
Kilian Klimek wrote:
i know this has been discusses very much,
There is a related discussion on python-ideas right now and was a long
discussion on python-list/c.l.p within the last month. And the month
before. Either would have been the place to post this.
i'm sorry, but i
Kilian Klimek schrieb:
Hello,
i know this has been discusses very much, i'm sorry,
but i can't help it. In a nutshell, the proposal is as
follows:
1. Self remains explicit (like it is now).
2. if a class is a subclass of a special class, e.g.
named 'selfless', the self parameter is
You can provide selfless class as a class with special metaclass that
overloads __new__ and changes signature of each method. Not sure how
good is this, but requires no changes to the language and will work as
you want.
Cheers,
fijal
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Kilian Klimek
[EMAIL
Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
You can provide selfless class as a class with special metaclass that
overloads __new__ and changes signature of each method. Not sure how
good is this, but requires no changes to the language and will work as
you want.
Are you advocating this Maciej? ;-)
There's
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On 27 agu 2008 at 08:46:15, Kilian Klimek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello,
i know this has been discusses very much, i'm sorry,
but i can't help it. In a nutshell, the proposal is as
follows:
1. Self remains
Kilian Klimek wrote:
Saying your method must accept an extra parameter (which most people
call 'self') that carries all object attributes is hardly any more
explicit then saying there is a special variable (which is always named
'this') that carries all object attributes.
in this context,
