(...) > The traditional way of calling superclass methods and getting an unbound > method should still work. It just won't be symmetric with the way the > functions are defined. Since this is not the typical way methods are > called, it seems reasonable.
Using "obj.some_method(blah)" when something is defined as "def some_method(self, blah):" is easy to understand since someone may be filling the "self" parameter for you (partial functions anyone?), but using "Class.some_method(self, blah)" when something is defined as "def some_method(blah):" looks bizarre. I've programmed for a long time in other languages where "self" is implicit, and have also programmed in Python for many years using the explicit "self". The explicit "self" in Python completely matches with the features of the language, IMO. Making it implicit would be a huge mistake, and one that would most probably seem absurd if you have used Python for a while and haven't had contact with other languages that introduce a very magic "self" in some contexts of your program. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
