On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 7:21 AM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2022 at 06:22:08PM -0700, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: > > > Is it unreasonable to instead suggest generalizing the assignment target > > for parameters? For example, if parameter assignment happened left to > > right, and allowed more than just variables, then one could do: > > > > def __init__(self, self.x, self.y): pass > > What would this do? > > def __init__(self, spam.x, eggs.y): pass > > Would it try to assign to variables spam and eggs in the surrounding > scopes? > > How about this? > > def __init__(self, x, x.y): pass > Yes, I agree. I don't think that the syntax is unreasonable, but it looks like it would be putting `self` at the same "level" of all the other possible parameters and could lead to this kind of confusion. What _might_ be a possibility (I'm not advocating in favor of it) is, like ruby does, to also add the `@x` as syntactic sugar for `self.x` in the body of the methods. This way the `@x` in the signature would be consistent, but I believe it can conflict conceptually with the "explicit self" philosophy. > > > -- > Steve > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WDRZ7QYQWXCL3QTV4YVIL2YUAS4DNK7I/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/LKVUSGMXYWZHBK432UHL2ACVZOWNWH5P/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
